How difficult is it to study a period of history in depth without understanding the language of the time? For example, I imagine studying Roman history would be extremely difficult without an understanding of Latin, but is this also true for studying Anglo-Saxon history without knowledge of Old English? Also how much can modern language understanding help in ancient study, say studying Celtic history and only being able to speak modern Gaelic.

"The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history"

What did they expect their own bomb to achieve? Didn't USA know the destructive qualities their creation had?

In extension, when was a possible moon landing hypothesized?

Superpowers, despite the decomissioning of nuclear weapons, still have a lot of warheads, both sides try to spread their influence, thought the balance tipped a bit to the west, and the world is still bi-polar. A slowly changing trend but nonetheless present.

Sorry if this falls in to current events category, I assume it's historical paralels.

Why did the kaiser of Germany and the emperor of Austria-Hungary abdicate after the end of WW1? I know that the allies wanted to convict them of starting the war but couldent they just pass the thrones to their Heirs rather then abolishing the monarchy?

The book I'm getting this from I just picked up for a dollar: Medieval Households by David Herlihy. So far it looks fantastic but I want to double check what he's claiming at the start.

To give more detail, the claim is that their "familia" consisted of either all of the possessions of the household or all of the people in it under the head, depending on the context, whereas the head himself was the "paterfamilias". In some contexts "familia" exclusively referred to the slaves. Herlihy says that he cannot find an ancient word for blood family as we would think of it.

I am interested in history of this mysterious people. I have read that most of scholars think that they come from Asia Minor. But there are also the ones who claim that they are aboriginal for Italy. What is current the most popular theory?

It is said that when Yi fell in the battle his sons took up the helm of the ship he was captaining, how did people not notice Yi was dead and lose morale.

I'd really like to know about Kaiser Wilhelm II's post WWI life. I know he spent it in exile in the Netherlands and I remember reading that he expected Hitler to hand power back to him (in Richard J. Evans The Third Reich in power I think) but that Hitler just thought he was a fool. I'd like to hear more about that kind of thing.

• So how did he spend his days?

• What did he think of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich?

• What was his opinion on the war?

• Did he visit other countries?

• What happened to him/what did he do when the Nazis took over the Netherlands?

• Any other interesting points are of course welcome

From what I've read, the Ottomans didn't have pikemen as a part of their army. If so, how was warfare conducted, specifically against pike-wielding European armies? How were arquebusiers protected?

I read somewhere that in 1989, the official protocol was released, and the USSR condemned it, but I guess now in modern Russia they are kindof propping it up to be more acceptable.

What were the justifications for the pact from the USSR standpoint, and now latter Russia?

See title. I found that most western nations tend to be somewhat reluctant to name the events in 1915 by what they were.

Is it solely because they don't want to hurt their relations with Turkey, or is there an actual dispute whether or not the documents and reports etc. are true?

Did they pay for their education? Were they paid for non-practical discoveries? How were they viewed by the general public?