Unlike many neighboring regions, Iberia seems to be unusually diverse when looking at the number of languages it contains. These languages also have an unusually large role in the political structure of the modern Iberian Peninsula. What are the political and cultural explanations for why Iberia is so lingually fractured, while many other nearby regions are seemingly more unified?

Thera are accounts of Europeans coming in contact with the Americas causing pandemics in the local population because they had no immunity to viruses they never had encountered. Is there any evidence of the opposite? Where Europeans contracted something from the natives.

Currently reading Plutarch, and this is one of the footnotes: "Simonides was one of the most famous Greek poets. His work survives only in fragments"

Why does Homer's work survive but Simonides' doesn't? The same applies to writers like Plutarch, who made references to many well respected historians whose work also doesn't survive.

Where there any black Vikings, as in Afro-Scandinavian vikings? From reading about I found the term “black Danes” which i believe was used in Ireland to refer to a specific group of Vikings who went to Ireland. Was this a reference to darker skin or darker hair than other vikings, the only books I’ve seen mention Vikings were black were from around the early 20th century which use eugenics as evidence so I’m a bit hesitant to trust them.

Any answers or references to extra reading about Viking life (less stories and accounts of their raids and more living conditions and social norms) would be appreciated

I was reading about electoral abuses during the late Roman Republic and came across this line:

> The lex Aelia Fufia, dating from the mid-second century, was an important change that ushered in the closing chapter. It extended the power of religious obstruction (obnuntiatio) beyond the augurs to the magistrates, giving the upper classes an even more flexible weapon when they opposed a populist measure. (Troxler, 2008)

but I'm kind of confused. They mean it went from just being the college of augurs to being all magistrate, right? Weren’t most magistrates also priests? But not all?

I do not understand the distinctions between these groups.

Thank you.

I want to write a book set in this place ( ´◡‿ゝ◡`)

I read somewhere that when they tried to enslave Natuve Americans it was unsuccessful, but what made the colonists decide to import Africans rather than another peoples?

"The Nazis improved the economy", "Clean Wehrmacht", "The Wehrmacht had the best tanks and was a highly mechanised army" ... are but some of the popular history falsehoods that seem to just not want to die.

The Nazis built an economy on debt and theft of Jewish property that was close to bankcruptcy before the war, yet it is a very popular belief that "the Nazis werent 100% bad, they also dis good things, like build up the economy!"

The Wehrmacht was deeply involved in the warcrimes, yet it is a popular belief that they were mostly clean of sin and just apolitical draftees that didnt do nothing.

The Nazi tanks that get the most praise, such as the Tiger and the Panther, were overengineered and had many mechanical problems, yet somehow are seen as the best tanks of the war. The Wehrmacht is seen as this highly efficient and mechanized force, despite being largely horse drawn (to a higher percentage than most of their major adversaries even).

Most of these false beliefs stem directly from Nazi propaganda and the fact that Nazi generals were allowed to have a large influence on the post-war perception on their, and the Wehrmachts, performance during the War, because their memoirs were used as the primary source.

Of course, for decades now much research has existed that busts all these myths. Yet thanks to the Internet these myths are more popular than ever and just dont seem to want to die.

For every video there is on YouTube debunking this stuff, 10 more videos peddling the same falsehoods pop up.

And this is not just in relation to myths about the Nazis. This can be seen in many other areas of history, too, such as "The Roman Empire fell due to cultural decadence" or "the Civil War was about states rights". Its everywhere.

How do historians deal with that? How do they combat this spread of misinformation? What do they think about the chances of ever successfully eliminating most of the popular history falsehoods? Do they think its hopeless?

If a movie theater sells anything it's popcorn. How did this become so popular in today's society and when did this cultural trend start?

Reading When Montezuma Met Cortés by Restall, and he posits the elaborate and extensive zoo developed over the reigns of several Triple Alliance tlahtoani ("speaker"/imperial leader) in Tenochtitlan was the inspiration for the emergence of a royal/elite European collection culture, and eventual development of zoos.

Traditionally, the I thought the narrative is European elites started accruing collections, mostly of religious artifacts, and the practice gradually morphed into secular items, and eventually living collections in zoos.

Is Restall on his own with this idea of the Old World copying the culture of New World empires? Do historians think the obsession with collections and curiosities emerged in Europe after contact?

Thanks in advance!

Assuming this couple's love was strong enough to warrant risking their freedom and lives. I have heard that around that time it was perfectly common for male friends to live in the same house and even sleep in the same bed as each other. There was even a story of John Adams and Ben Franklin sharing a bed when they were in France. I have been interested in this idea since I've heard of the potential romance between Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, If you haven't heard that story this quote should tell the minimum "I wish my dear Laurens it might be in my power, by action rather than words, to convince you that I love you," (Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, April 1779). As A Bisexual romantic, you can imagine how this makes me feel. I'd love to hear your views on this situation.

P.S: Forgive me I talk a lot lol and given that I am queer myself this topic gets me going

I have been looking, for some time, for manuals, compendiums and written sources analyzing the methods and materials used by craftsmen from antiquity to the late medieval period. I am looking particularly for woodworking, bone working, and metal smithing. Ceramics, sculpting and painting, while appreciated, are outside of my realm of practice. Any and all books and articles are much appreciated.

Seeing a civil war be decided by a duel between the two leaders was very surprising to me. I looked to see if I could find any other examples, and indeed, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica mentions that, when Phocas himself rebelled against Basil II,

Basil galloped forward, seeking a personal combat with the usurper who was riding in front of his lines. Phocas, just as he prepared to face him, fell from his horse and was found to be dead. This ended the rebellion

Now, that story sounds quite weird to me, so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

So my question is what role personal combat played in Byzantine warfare, and how common it was, both during civil wars and wars with foreign enemies. If it makes a difference, I'm mainly interested in the early medieval period of the Eastern Roman Empire here.

I know that Thomas was the son of a nobleman, and that his father recognized him as a son and gave him a good education. It is also not hard to imagine that being the son of a nobleman protected Thomas from the worst of the racist ideas of that time but how did he manage to achieve such a high rank in the french army?. His life must have been an uphill battle