As a follow-up question, did Dacian culture and language disappear? Did the romanization of the region have any other long-standing effects than making Romanian a romance language?

I'm a Political Science student and during lectures about parliamentary history we were taught about so called factions that existed in Western European (semi-) democracies in the 19th century that existed before there were political parties. These factions were supposed so be groups of people that worked together in parliament around certain issues (economic, regional, etc.). I wondered whether such factions also existed during the Roman Republic.

I understand that words such as "cunt", "fuck" and "shit" have only been considered rude for the past couple of centuries, and that profanity in medieval times generally meant taking the Lord's name in vain.

In the show the characters use curse words quite freely. Was it common for people (particularly nobles) in medieval Europe to use words and phrases they would have considered to be obscene in casual conversation with each other? Was there any punishment associated with inappropriate use of profanity?

Are there any reported remedies or was it just not a thing women's had to deal with?

It seems the land would be pretty easy to conquer and both China and Russia could easily just take some of it without much repercussion. Are there any diplomatic reasons for this or is it just because most of Mongolia's land is pretty much useless wasteland?

Were Greek-speaking Byzantines reading the same set of canonical classical texts that we would list?

i.e.:

• Homer
• Herodotus
• Thucydides
• Plato
• Aristotle
• Aristophanes
• Sophocles
• Xenophon

Would they have rated the "greatness" of these texts in the approximate order that we do? Did they have more contemporary texts that they would have rated as highly as these? Did they think any of these canonical texts were rubbish in comparison with our own appraisals, or controversial for being pagan?

In both Islamdom and European Christendom a kind of "scholasticism" was necessary to accommodate pagan philosophical texts to monotheism, did this exist or was needed in Byzantium?

Sorry if that seems trivial.

How were the French and Austrian Habsburg armies organized during the seventeenth century, and how did this organization change over the course of the century? In particular I'm wondering how reliant these governments were on commissions granted to third parties to raise and command troops, how their soldiers were trained and disciplined, and how centralized their command structures were.

I know of the Invasions, and I know of the expansions but why has there been the repeated taking of the Iberian peninsula?

I recently found this book at my public library. First off this book paints a horrifying picture of American Nuclear policy but I have a number of questions about the book:

How reliable and accurate is the information in this book?

How aware was Soviet and Chinese leadership that America was trying to develop a first strike ability and had people in leadership roles actually advocating for surprise decapitation strikes?

Are there any similar quality books on Soviet and Chinese nuclear history and policy?

I feel like it was much easier to fake an identity back in the day. The things that could possibly give them away were probably either their last names or the fact that they practice Judaism. The first, they could just make up another name after moving to a place where no one knew them; and the second, they could maybe just practice their religion in secret, or not at all (I realize that this is not ideal, but surely when it's a matter of life or death this is possible).

So why didn't they do this? I apologize for sounding naive and possibly insensitive, but I'd really like to understand how the society functioned back in the day.

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians considered themselves separate ethnic groups although they were aware that they were closely related to each other and that their dialects were mutually intelligible. The Swedish and Danish also considered themselves separate ethnic groups despite acknowledging how close they were.

Similar to the above, was it the same for the ancient British? Did the ancient Cumbrians, Welsh (Cymraeg), Cornish, etc. all see themselves as separate ethnic groups (like the Frisians & Saxons did) but acknowledge that they were closely related Brythonic peoples? Or did the Cumbrians, Welsh, etc. see themselves as part of a single ethnic group with the only difference being geography? I was wondering since the terms Cymraeg and Cumbri sound very similar and come from the same root and I would think their languages would also be mutually intelligible in ancient times.

It seems like since at least 1930's, the left wing in America is much weaker than in most other countries, to the point of almost not existing in the mainstream. The party most Americans consider left wing would likely be seen as centrist or right of center in most other countries, at least compared to the popular left wing parties elsewhere. There isn't a large socialist party, or a large social democrat party in the political mainstream. It seems like the whole of the American political spectrum for the two large parties starts off as further on the right of the spectrum then most other political parties in other liberal democracies. I'm aware that there are some left wing parties and movements, but from casual observers standpoint they seem to be either fringe movements, or have no official representation in the major parties, barring the occasional charismatic figure that pops up every once in a while(Bernie Sanders and the like).

Is it entirely because of cold war propaganda, or are there more complex factors at play? (I really hope there are more complex factors at play that someone can describe to me in detail!)

Edit: I've also noticed that working class Americans tend to gravitate towards the right end of the political spectrum (economically), while where I come from the working class gravitates towards the left end of the spectrum(economically). Is this phenomenon unique to the United States, and if so, are there traceable historical and social causes for this? Thank you!

Compare Say the USS Hartford, flagship at the Battle of Mobile Bay, with its 24 guns, to the USS Constitutions 54 guns. Why the big reduction? Was it just an increase in destructive power that made that many guns obsolete? More maneuverability from steam engines made less guns more important?

Thanks for answering.