In North America, we have the continent-spanning countries of Canada, the United States and Mexico, which each consist of a number of provinces/states, unified under a federal government, and a significant number of which could easily be countries in their own right.

However, in Central and South America, we instead find a large number of individual countries instead. Why did these regions seek individual independence, rather than becoming federalized countries like the regions in the North did?

My understanding is that the Mongol rulers never learned Chinese, and spoke almost exclusively Mongolian at court, and in their daily lives. Was the aristocracy of China similarly forced to learn Mongolian? How much did it percolate down into the vernacular? Were official government documents written in Mongolian?

What do we know about prehistoric settlements in the British isles? I've done some cursory research, but can't find a lot of info on the earliest human settlements there. Do we know what groups came first, who they were, or anything about their culture or language? What time frames are we looking at, and how different were the isles then?

For example:

How was the move communicated to the many other kingdoms with which Rome was acquainted?

To what degree did Byzantium possess the infrastructure to accommodate the world's largest imperial power?

Throughout thousands of years of human history, the use of the shield during battle has been a staple in nearly every region in the world. Yet as we entered the 20th century, the act of a soldier carrying a shield into battle seemed to vanish completely.

Today we have body armor, which does provide a modicum of protection. But in the 20th century, most notably in the two World Wars, soldiers would run into the fray all but naked to the world in terms of individual protection.

Why is this?

I understand that metal was at a premium, but why not use wooden shields to block bullets and shrapnel? At least it would be something.

This occurred to me after reading The Thin Red Line and watching Saving Private Ryan. I can't help but picture myself there and imagine what it would be like to storm the hills of Guadalcanal or take the beach at Omaha. And I would always come back to the idea of carrying a shield.

So what happened? Too expensive? Too unwieldy? Was it cultural or simply practical?

I'd appreciate any reply!

Hello there! I was wondering if people of the past, say around 13th century and below, knew the connection to inflation with the amount of gold they produced. I seem to remember some Roman leader minting above average amount of coins due to the good mining season (or finding a new source I forget) and the empire took a small economic hurdle. To reword my question I am wondering if countries would had the same economic policys as today or did they just mint what ever was avalible to them at the time.

Hi all, I hope I am posting to the right place. I'm looking for help in figuring out how to best preserve some of my wife's grandfather's illustrations from WWII. He was a Bataan Death March survivor, survived 2 prison ships, and apparently even spent some time in zero ward at cabanatuan. His diary indicates that his artistic talents won him favor with many of the guards, and that they would give him easier work assignments or extra food for drawing their portraits. Anyway, the illustrations are all on the back of his internment papers, red Cross letters, or Japanese rice paper, and I was hoping this community might be able to help me develop a plan to present to the family on how to best preserve these illustrations. Right now they are in a safety deposit box. I've brought up the idea of loaning them out to a museum, but they are worried about them being buried in some archive basement somewhere. Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

When was Christian/European elements (King with a cross , bishop) and other "Western" elements introduced into Chess. Many historians believe that Chess was started in Eastern Asia (China or India) but if I was to visit any country and play Chess the pieces would still include Christian/Western elements. My question here is when was every chess board replaced with Western styled pieces.

If we accept that Hitler was focussed on Stalingrad for political reasons it doesn't explain why he wanted to do this by pouring troops and resources into the meatgrinder that Stalingrad became.

Even without hindsight it seems fairly obvious that it would have been possible to "siege" Stalingrad while pushing forward elsewhere. Only after having pushed the Russians back elsewhere.

If, in Hitler's mind, capturing Stalingrad was the only option was there not still better ways to achieve this? Why did Hitler feel a direct push into the city was preferrable to trying to encircle it for example? I understand his apparent obsession with the city but not the way that goal was worked towards.

I was also wondering whether historians often have the boldness to make a claim like that.

Thanks.

Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, Forgotten Voices of Burma by Julian Thompson and Battle for teh Flaklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins.

Were they doing slave labor? Or were they doing more suitable tasks like being advisors or scribes?

.

Neither can remember any details, only that it involved horses and mirrors (and that it was a famous commander, apparently). I'd appreciate any help, thanks!

Was there a significant epidemic of old world diseases in the new world following the arrival of Viking colonists in North America, similar to the post Columbian epidemics that ravaged the new world ?

A certain scene shows a shield wall being charged by a group of chariots and horseman. Would this be a common form of battle at the time? I believe the movie takes place in 1300 BC