Does each of these cultures come from one old culture or each one made it national independently?

Sorry for the english, it is not my native language.

Tactics? Advantages? Allies? Weather? Amount of troops?

Thanks is advance!

If so, how would enemy forces have known these ships were carrying supplies and/or troops?

And, on a broader note, how did Nietzsche come to be thought of as one himself?

Most people I know think of Nietzsche as being a "nazi philosopher", even though many of his more well-known writings indicate he had no love for anti-semitism and German hyper-nationalism. How dId he end up getting tied in with the Nazi party, given his massive idealogical divide with Nazism?

I've recently found myself realising there is so much world history I know nothing about, and I'm on a bit of a quest to better myself and learn more about the things I'm curious about. Unfortunately I've found it hard to find good sources for my level of interest. Every time I find myself searching for a topic online I'm either met with an overly simplistic overview or something so in depth a laymen like me can't understand it. What I'm asking for is your personal recommendations for a source where I can get the following sorts of information:

• A detailed overview of the events, not super simplistic but also not assuming any knowledge from the reader.
• What led up to the events occurring (including Geo-political factors and previous historical events - e.g. How the war in Vietnam with the US affected Cambodia and the formation of the Khmer Rouge)
• the key players in these events, their stories and the aftermath.

Some of the topics that have taken my interest lately are:

• Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
• The Cold War
• Cuba, it's fight for independence, the bay of pigs, I'd also love to learn more about Ché and Chavez

I apologise if this isn't the right forum for this question but I just thought that this would be my best port of call, as I'm hoping to come back here with more specific questions once I have a better knowledge of the topics I'm interested in.

I know of Cicero who mentioned something along the lines of that in one of his writings, but I'm still slightly confused.

Do you know of any good surveys of the literature, perhaps?

Calling /u/GeorgiusFlorentius and /u/bitparity in particular.

In AD 555, the Merovingian king Chlothar inherited Austrasia from his brother Theudebald. One year later, Chlothar's son, Chram, revolted against him and tried to overthrow him. Why did Chram do this? Did it have something to do with the Austrasian inheritance? Was it a consequence of Chlothar sending Chram south to govern territory in his name? Is it really just a case of a greedy son rising up against his father, or is there more to this story?

I've been reading Gregory of Tours and I can't wrap my head around the motivations here. Choice quotes:

Chlothar sent his son Chram to Arvernis [the capital of Auvergne, now called Clermont-Ferrand].

He was extremely ill-advised in nearly everything that he did, and his premature death was a direct result of this. He was hated by the townsfolk of Arvernis. Among all his associates there was not one capable of giving him good and useful advice. He collected round him a band of young and dissolute people from the lower classes. He cared for no one else and it was to their advice only that he listened...

Chram left Arvernis and went to the city of Poitiers. He lived there in great state. He was led astray by the advice of evil men around him and made up his mind to go over to his uncle Childebert and to betray his father... They sent secret messengers to each other and conspired together and plotted against Chlothar.

Once he had made this arrangement with Childebert Chram went off to the Limousin region. All this territory, which was part of his father's realm, and which Chram had once visited, he now submitted to his own rule.

From this I can only assume the following: that Chram's power base came from the lower rather than the upper classes (our aristocratic narrator is positively seething here), that Chram had political connections in the Limousin region formed during a prior visit, and that he relied on his uncle to support him in overthrowing his father. Do we know anything else about what was going on?

What evidence or support is given for his "quasi-conversion"?

The term is used in a general summation of Constantine's life, but not elaborated on. Here is the source quote, in bold. I included the entire paragraph for context.

The Christianization of the Roman Empire is typically divided into two phases, before and after the year 312 which marked the momentous quasi-conversion of Constantine. By this date Christianity had already converted a significant but unknown proportion of at least the urban population of the Empire, including a number of the elite classes. Constantine ended the intermittent persecution of Christianity with the Edict of Milan, which granted tolerance to all religions, specifically mentioning Christianity. Under Constantine's successors, Christianization of Roman society proceeded by fits and starts, as John Curran recently documented in detail.

I couldn't find an answer on /r/AskHistorians via the search function, but if I missed it I apologize - a link would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Did the USSR use the language spoken in each district or was it more arbitrary? Did Poland or the Baltic States have any border changes pre and post WW2?

The title covers most of it, in The Last Lion the author makes it seem painfully obvious that the correct line of action during WWI would be to continue the push through the Dardanelles with the British Navy without waiting for troops on land to back them up, was it really this obvious at the time? Could the war have realistically turned simply by pushing a little further a lot faster?

I have a couple of Canadian friends from college and I was chatting with them recently when somehow this topic came up. Apparently somehow the notion has worked its way into the Canadian education system that the famous burning of the White House during the War of 1812 was perpetrated by Canadians, and that this is a cheeky source of pride for them (not that I begrudge them that, given how unimportant the war seems to all the countries involved with the passage of time).

But I'm curious if anyone could shed light on the historiography here or how the misattribution came to be? Everything I've read suggests that the troops that marched on Washington and subsequently burned the White House were British regulars fresh from the Peninsular War in Europe, supplemented by an additional contingent from the British West Indies.

And to clarify, I'm not talking about some sort of confusion of what counts as "Canadian" in this context, like saying that "Canada was still a British colony so technically that counts as Canadians doing the deed" (which would still be inaccurate, but more understandable). I mean they literally believe that like a force of Canadian soldiers from Canada marched on Washington and burned the White House, an idea which even a cursory understanding of the strategic theaters of the war would immediately expose as ludicrous.

I understand that it wanted to achieve more than possible, but I don't understand how other political and economic factors affected it.

Seems like he would have been a somewhat popular candidate amongst the "common man," but I understand that he was 86 when Washington was inaugurated.

EDIT: 83, my bad.

I was recently listening to a BBC History podcast in which British historian, Richard Overy, suggests (ever so briefly) that many high ranking Germans held out hope until the end that a treaty could be made with the Americans and British that would have allied Germany with the pair in a unified effort against the Soviets.

I hadn't previously heard this claim and am hoping some more information can be provided on it (or at least I can be pointed to someplace else to learn more). I suppose my first question is the veracity of the claim, and more specifically whether or not the feeling was an isolated or pervasive one.

Of course, I don't mean for this to get into 'alternative history' and unfounded speculation, so the actual plausibility of the idea isn't exactly what I'm asking about. If it is true however, I suspect there should be some evidence to support the statement.

Thanks!