The world was already aware of the horrible things the third reich had done, war crimes and holocaust and everything, Germany had already lost the war, pretty much the whole world wanted Germany to be held accountable. So, were the trials a real trial where the defendants had a chance or was the outcome pretty much decided from the get go and the appearance of a trial was just to try and show the world the righteousness of the allied forces even when dealing with such a horrible regime?

Where can I find information about Kanem Bornu, especially in the economic and military areas?

We hear that lots of ancient texts and information was lost when the Alexandria library was burned down. Is there any information as to the general topics that were destroyed? Lots of people allude to conspiracies, e.i. ancient aliens, Atlantis, magic etc. realistically is there any way of knowing the general topics and subjects of the scrolls that were destroyed?

I may be operating under incorrect assumptions but my impression is that the migration era Germanic tribes (Frank’s, Visigoths, etc.) kept a separate legal system for the Germanic people alongside the remnants of the Roman legal system.

Firstly is this correct? More broadly was there a legal distinction made between the tribal people and the pre-existing Roman populations of these states?

Secondly, if this distinction existed, why did it exist? The Roman Empire had emperors of a variety of different origins but those emperors do not seem to have changed the legal status of their ethnic groups. I am wondering why the Germanic kings felt more distinct from the Roman population than the Roman generals who often usurped the Roman state.

I've read about some peoples on the island of Madagascar having a striking amount of Chinese DNA and I'm curious if that had happened anywhere else in the world.

As a non-American, it's easy to make assumptions about what state capitals are in the US based off the largest and most famous cities there: surely, one might assume, NY is NYC, California is LA, Washington is Seattle, Florida is Miami, Oregan is Portland, Louisiana is New Orleans, Illinois is Chicago, etc.

However I was shocked to discover that in almost every state the capital is often a much smaller town that I've rarely, if ever, heard of (NY is actually Albany, California is Sacremento, Washington is Olympia, Florida is Tallahassee, etc.)

Now, there are some rare exceptions (Phoenix, Arizona and Salt Lake City, Utah notably) and I'm sure every state has their specific reasons for choosing their state capitals, but are there any general trends or overarching historical reasons why big, notable cities seem to be spurned for the capital status?

Having grown my own pumpkins, I know that there a robust plant, capable of producing enormous vegetables. The flesh is delicious, the seeds can be roasted and eaten, and they mature late in the autumn, making an excellent crop. If the skin is left intact, they can last literally weeks outdoors in a cool autumn.

So why haven't I heard about First Nations living off of pumpkin all winter? Were there other, more productive crops? What role did the pumpkin play in their agricultural complex?

I am wonndering if there are any specific references to Darwin, evolution, and his works. It would be interesting to see an explicit mention if Darwin’s name.

I’d love anything about daily life, more information on clan structure, religious beliefs, etc. I’m looking for pre-Jacobite uprising, please.

Articles are also fine!

Hi there, could anyone explain the causes of the Spanish Civil War? I've tried reading/researching and now I'm all confused. Thanks!

Recently I read Will Eisner's graphic novel Fagin the Jew, an alternative retelling of the life of the character of the same name from Dickens's Oliver Twist. Eisner (logically) places Fagin as the descendant of Ashkenazi immigrants to England during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as many lower-class British Jews of the time would have been. When I, a 21st-century American Jew of Sephardic descent, imagine first- or second-generation Ashki immigrants speaking English, a very specific accent comes to mind, of the sort one sees in old movies, occasionally in the older relatives of my friends, or in the modern day is mostly associated with the likes of Dr. Zoidberg. But that accent emerged in America-- did British influence produce a distinct Yiddish-British accent from the Yiddish-American one I'm familiar with? And did this accent survive long enough to be recorded, either in writing or by phonograph? What did it sound like?

As we know Japan occupied much of coastal China during world war 2. I doubt they would be able to take over china in it's entirety but I also doubt would be impossible for Japan to advance further into china if things went differently. This isn't supposed to be asking what if Japan won ww2 I'm wondering how what parts of China could they have taken over if they focused more on China rather than South east asia and the pacific ocean. A better way to put my question would be what parts of china that Japan would be best suited to japanese expansion given their logistical restraints

So, I know that, for a time, the Mughal Empire was the richest polity in the world. It had a rich economy, advanced technology, a large urban population, and a powerful military.

How were the Qing's dealings with the Mughals? A country so powerful would not, I assume, be treated just like any other "tributary state" or "rebel tributary" under Heaven.

Besides, I know that the Chinese notion of Mandate of Heaven had a large influence in East and Southeast Asia, with many rulers from Japan to Korea to Vietnam recognizing China as the "Middle Kingdom" (though not always) and legitimizing their rule at home by being recognized by China. They would even call themselves Emperors in their nations but never equal to the Chinese Emperor (except Japan). How was India positioned in relation to all of it?

The first known democracy in the world was in Athens. Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century B.C.E. But why did it start in Athens. ?onsidering that other city states had other ways of governing.

The more colorful version of this 19th Century serial killer's life is that he had a "murder castle" created; a hotel with confusing architecture, rooms designed to kill their occupants, trapdoors to drop corpses down into the cellar, and so on. Another version I've heard is that Holmes just wasn't much of an architect, and that he contracted one builder after another, so he could cheat them out of payment, and that this also played into the weird and messy layout. I've also heard that he greatly exaggerated his killings.

Was there actually a murder castle? And did Holmes actually use it to kill people?

In Chapter 5, after noting that Romans typically define their history in terms of war, there is the excerpt from the title. What is the point being made? What is the significance?

In particular "it was written before the third had happened" seemed to imply to me that it was significant they called the war the "Second" before the third had even occurred. But this seems fairly logical after two wars; it would have been surprising to find references to the "First Punic War" in the records before the occurrence of the second.

Is there something I'm missing?

Would there have been any expectations or requirements as to how the nobility or soldiery were equipped or dressed, beyond simply what they could afford? Did the soldiery in any way replicate their lord’s heraldry, once that became a thing? Were there weapons exclusively meant for one tier of fighter vs. another?

I was reading a biography on James Madison and it mentioned that he brought an enslaved person to college with him that he had inherited. I know Jefferson also brought an enslaved person to college with him. That got me wondering what exactly the enslaved person would do all day in relation to the student. Would they accompany them to class and sit next to them to be at their beck and call? Or would they be sort of imprisoned in the student's dorm room while the student had class and then serve the student when they came back? Were they permitted to leave the college campus at all? I'm interested mostly in the lives and experiences the enslaved peoples went through if any such testimony survives.