Obviously he was the legal heir, but as King of Scotland, there must have been many English who were less than happy! The two countries had gone to war several times over the past centuries, and that even included a border clash during James' reign, as well as a few more in living memory. From what I can find, the passing of the crown to James was orderly and peaceful though. Was there really no serious opposition to this? Or was it just limited to a war of words?

I was taught in school that civilization is believed to have begun with the Sumerians around 6000 years ago. However after some quick research on my own it appears that a step pyramid has been found dating back to 22 000 BC, as well as several ruins falling into the 15 000 - 10 000 B.C. range. What does this mean for the current model of how civilization started? If a civilization 22 000 years ago could build a step pyramid, does this mean they probably had agriculture as well ? Were there many cities all over the world with distinct cultures that have been lost to the ages ? What would life have been like for people in this time ? Would we have had armies and "nobles" and merchants and trade routes ? 22 000 years ago, would it have looked like Sumeria but without the writing ? Does the existence of ruins from 20 000 B.C. lend credence to stories of Atlantis and other lost civilizations? What exactly do we know about this enigmatic period in human history?

I'm watching Inside the Court of Henry VIII and the historian showing Anne Boleyn's prayer book was flipping the pages with bare fingers. He did the same with Henry VIII's English bible. Last week I watched Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn: The Lovers Who Changed History, and the historian Dr Suzannah Lipscomb did the same with Anne's prayer books, which even had little love notes between the two in the margins.

I would have imagined it would be standard procedure to handle these objects-especially something as fragile and old and precious as a Queen's book of illuminations or a King's bible with gloves. Is there any reason that isn't the case?

It's common knowledge (i.e. in the encyclopedia) that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and subsequent barbarian invasions, the land that was once Roman Italy became a collection of independent political units, many of which would eventually bring about the Renaissance, and also that the nation reunited in the 19th Century.

My question, however, is: During those years when Italy was politically fragmented, did a social, cultural, linguistic, geographical or some other comprehensive concept of Italy remain? If so, what was the scope of that concept?

By scope, I mean, for example, did the Genoese and Milanese think of themselves as Italian even though their dialects are more similar to French than to Tuscan and Romanesco? Did people still consider Sicily part of Italy? Did peasants in Italy think of themselves as Italian or did only the aristocracy, or neither? Outside Italy, did the French, Germans, Spanish, English think of Italy as a single nation that happened to be politically fragmented or just a group of political units with little connection to each other? Did the late Medieval/early Renaissance Italian city-states think of themselves as Italian city-states or just city-states? ETC ETC ETC

TL;DR: Was there still a concept of Italy even when Italy was politically fragmented?

My initial assumption is that the Albigensians were branded as heretics so just didn't count, but if he was that concerned with heresy wouldn't he have approved of bringing the eastern Christians back into the Catholic fold?

I'm not sure if excluding Royalty (or royal families) would make a difference or not, but my interest is in both variations.

First time posting here, and its a question that's been on my mind for quite some time. In most video games and TV programs we see characters using armor that is made up primarily of leather, maybe some mail underneath but sometimes just thick pieces of armor. So how effective would it actually be, or what would it primarily be used to counter?

did dukes exist when clovis I was the king of franks? if not, when did they appear?

Both do deal with using the situation to one's favour in order to win conflicts, as well as hinting at opportunism and discipline as being key factors in one's victory. Was just wondering whether the former was inspired by the latter, or if they were just coincidentally matching commentaries.

Examples would be the Angkor Wat, etc. If the government was so intent on wiping the country's slate blank, why not start at the most obvious place? Thanks in advance!

For my A-Level course I need to write 2 essays on 1 area of history, one looking at an event, person, development or movement that was important, and one applying the significance of that across a wider time frame. I was wondering if out there there was any Degree level (or slightly lower) resources that could help me, and that you would recommend

Hi, I'm trying to work out how different tribes identified each other. For background: I'm writing a novel set in a fictional steppe-based world. One of my antagonists is a minor tribal warlord, who tries to gain power by starting a major tribal war between two larger clans--by having his warriors disguise themselves as warriors from one side and attack the other, then do the reverse. The so called "false flag operation".

Could this even have been done in real life? How? Are there any recorded notes about how tribes identified one another?