I am considering buying Time Life's 39 volume WW2 set from the late 70's, but I know popular perspectives of events can shift a lot in academia over the course of decades, so I'm wondering if anyone thinks this series is obsolete?

I'm just trying to logic my way through this.

The modern romance languages all stem from Latin. They sound similar and it is relatively easy for one to learn another when they already know one. So in 2000 years we went from Latin -> Vulgar Latin -> French/Spanish/Italian/Romanian/Portuguese/others.

By 50 BC PIE had already splintered into Romance/Germanic/Celtic families. Latin is further from PIE than from modern Italian (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Basically, I feel that there was FAR more language change from 3500 BC to 50 BC than from 50 BC to modern today. The major language families had already been established.

Mycenaean Greek was spoken ~1500 BC. It bears far more in common with modern Greek than it seems to do with PIE. Basically, Greek changed more in the 2000 year period from when PIE was spoken to Mycenae Greece than in the 3500 year period from Mycenae Greece to modern Greek.

Doesn't it make sense that languages would change faster as population increases/technology develops. So shouldn't we see more language change in recent centuries than before the common era?

Shouldn't PIE have been a language far before 3500 BC to allow for a proper amount of time to diffuse into the families found around 50 BC?

I am looking for books or other resources.

The first is would be a primer of sorts on native american law. I am not a lawyer, so I'd ask for something basic. I am interested in understanding which US laws Natives have to follow versus what they provide for themselves under tribal law. I am curious as to the extent of their soverienty and/or instances where they were able to protect their own culture from US intervention and law. For instance, how they were able to protect their own tobacco use and tax relief or try their own criminal cases outside of "our" justice system.

My question is more specifically about the 19th century but answers from before or after are fine. When for example following the February 1848 revolution in France how did French Algeria (or the other same French colonies at the time) react? Or Napoleon III's coup, the 3rd republic, etc. To me it seems that the military rule in colonies would create a more conservative politics who would oppose these revolutions but it appears that they do no become the bastions of counterrevolution. Was there large revolutionary support among the soldiers or administrators of colonies or were the revolutions not radical enough (compared to say a worker's revolution) to make the colonies accept the old government? Thank you in advance

I heard stories of British spies exposed in France for eating soup off the front of the spoon rather than the side, which I want to mention in an essay for college, but after extensive googling I can't find anything. Does anyone happen to have a source?

Or, if this is untrue, are there any other examples of spies being caught for missing small cultural signifiers like this?

A piece of fiction I'm working on involves a Russian young man coming to the United States around 1850, but will include one brief chapter in Alaska. What are the best sources about that time and place? I want to avoid falling into stereotypes.

Specifically, was there much permanent Russian settlement? What were relations between Russians and the local peoples? Would non-Russian Europeans or East Asians ever be found in Alaska? Other than fur trapping, what economic activity existed?

I'm listening to some Christmas music about "the newborn king" and it got me wondering: Has anyone ever been born a king? I can imagine a scenario where a king dies with no heirs and his wife is pregnant with a boy. Has that ever actually happened? If so, did the child become a king at birth?

Were there historical pressures which caused the majority of governments in post-WW1 western Europe, postcolonial Africa, Asia and Latin America, and post-communist eastern Europe to adopt this style of governance?

Hi doing some research about artillery and have a couple of questions.

How was artillery used in field battles during the 18th century, pre-Napoleon? Was there initial bombardment only, or was it used during the whole battle? What was the main aim of artillery, infantry casualties? How effective was it, was it a deciding factor in the outcome of a battle? How many guns did an army include?

Thanks!

I understand that this is still (obviously) a hotly debated and very politicized issue issue today so I tried to word this as neutrally as I could, if anyone takes issue with it I'll take it down and try to reword it. Thank you!

What accelerated "white flight" and leaving Detroit's black population in a state of decay?

I was taught in my year 5 history class that at the Battle of Culloden, the English soldiers were taught not to stab the Scotsman in front of them with the bayonet, but the highlander in front of the man to their right, thereby allowing easy access to the typically un-armoured region below the Scotsman's sword arm.

I am also aware that spiral staircases in medieval castles were built such that the central column would impede an attackers right sword arm.

Are there any other examples of military tactics utilising the assumption that ~90% of their enemies will be right-handers, and more importantly, did anyone ever assemble a military force comprised solely of southpaws to combat such tactics?

If not was there a 'fast track' to American citizenship at all?

I just think it's so cool and I want some more information to feed my imagination.

I am currently reading the Boris Johnson's biography, and I find it very biased, and shaped in a weird way (many flashbacks, ...). I am hoping to find another biography, maybe not much longer (I am not a native English speaker), but with more objectivity and even criticism of some of Churchill's actions. I would like to understand the man and his thinking throughout the events he encountered, not just hard cold facts. Thank you all in advance !

(I didn't find it in the book list in WWII biographies, hence my question)

Did the Vikings take the land by force? Was there any attempt by the native Irish to push them out?

Other then territorial gains how would the dukes go about forming a new empire/kingdom. Wouldn't that require serious legal reforms? Can a duke (with several other titles) just declare himself a king. If so who gave him permission, other kings, the pope, the provincial estates from each of his holdings? How close were the burgundian dukes to actualy forming a new kingdom. I also heard there were attempts to homogenize the region on a cultural level and centralize the goverment. Is there any evidence that they tried to centralize and create a burgundian culture. If so was it already there and did the burgundian duke strengthen it or was it entirely their idea?

Hi! Although Roman legion names are pretty well known, I cannot find as much about army names of their contemporaries. Did Greek, Phoenician, (Middle) Eastern, Germanic or other cultures use names for their armies too?