I remember reading that Emperor Frederick Barbarossa gave the family the right to bear the coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire because they were direct descendants of Charlemagne. How did they prove their lineage and earn that right? Also, was the Carandini family originally the Risi family?

EDIT: Yes, I know about genetic drift analysis. It's the reason why so many Asians are descendants of Genghis Khan and so many Europeans are descendants of Charlemagne. I'm asking how the Carandini family proved their lineage to Frederick Barbarossa during the 1100s, long before anyone knew about genetic drift analysis

Modern assessments have never really shown Nicholas II's rule in a positive light. Undoubtedly his feigned indifference to ruling hid both a rigid belief in the autocratic system and a lack of competence in making the right decisions.

My question is, given how inept he was at maintaining stability in the Empire, why did he survive so long as Tsar? Were any plans made prior to 1917 to oust him (as with Paul I)? Were any contenders for the throne ever mooted? I'm thinking particularly of Grand Duke Nicholas who was nominated for a role of Dictator by Nicholas in 1905 after the revolution.

Why didn't the aristocracy and army act sooner to oust him? Did they perhaps think a vacuum at the top would lead to further anarchy?

Thanks!

Although the Estada Novo considered all of the Portuguese colonies to be part of Portugal, didn't they consider Cabo Verde (and perhaps Sao Tome) to part of Portugal proper, and Portuguese as opposed to African? Why then, would they give independence to Cabo Verde under the auspice of decolonization, yet not give independence to the Azores or the Madeiras which are (at least to my understanding) relatively similar in their economies and societies? Thanks for any responses!

I am going to be moving to the US In a couple of years for work and want to learn more about it's history. I studied History to an honours level, but I focused on the South Pacific (I'm from NZ).

I would like to start with a high quality General History to give me some context. I guess the logical starting point is European arrival through to the end of the cold war. If there is a good general text on pre-european society I'll read that too. I'm used to studying oral history so if there are limited text records from the period I'm used to the ambiguity.

After that I would like to focus on early European settler society - I'm familiar with the "city upon a hill" concept and I would like to explore it's implications or counter examples more throughly.

Other areas I would like to focus on are the Civil rights movement (probably post WW2 civil rights) and the American Civil War.

Basically I'm looking for a reading list that will give me a good base knowledge. I can then use the sources contained in those texts to explore further.

Any suggestions about where I should begin? I haven't studied the US in depth before and I'm curious to learn.

There must have always been a relatively large number of people who appeard to suddenly become very ill then die, so what did people think was happening? Do we know of any civilizations attempting to treat cancer? Are there ancient sicknesses that we now know were cancer?

If there are four cooking appliances every kitchen in America has, it's a stove, an oven, a microwave, and a toaster. The first three are very versatile: with a stove and an oven you can cook practically anything, and a microwave is extraordinarily useful as well. A toaster makes toast. That's it. So how did it become such a necessity that I never questioned my need for one (until this morning, anyway) despite the fact that I only use the thing once every few months? Was there some very successful marketing scheme? Was there a time when it was the "must-have gadget" and it just stuck around? Was the ability to toast bread a more important part of food prep once upon a time?

I often see the claim that beer was popular and an important part of early societies like Egypt because it was safer than drinking water, but I never really see anyone source their claim. Is this really the case, and can you cite a source in your answer?

As a followup question, if it is true, why didn't they just boil water? Was that not known yet?

It's practically the same distance and I would expect it to be a lot faster than over the mountains. It also seems like a way better route to keep his army fed and strong.

The Bubonic plague killed most of Central Europe, and left the economy wrecked for a bit. How come it never spread up north and had the same devastating effects on the Vikings? Was there just no trade going up north? Was it the Cold? What's up with that?

Romans 1:16 says:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

I am confused about the use of the word Greek. My question is, what is a "Greek"? Is a Greek someone from present-day Greece? What about the cities in the Anatolian peninsula? The Macedonians? The hellenized Egyptians?

As I read more about the Vietnam War I'm a bit puzzled. In my mind there's no way that public opinion was the prime factor for Nixon to try to achieve "peace with honor." Especially since Kissinger was responsible for war crimes in SE Asia at the time and Nixon was all about following his "conscience." It just doesn't seem plausible that at this time the US government would be so willing to let their people sway their foreign policy.

Apologies for a few days delay, but April Fools pushed things back. Better late than never!

Most of its neighbours appear to have converted to Islam, so I'm curious how they stayed Christian (especially during the time they had Muslim rulers).

@askhistorians is awesome but I don't get the horse