We know how the pyramids are falling apart and that most aspects of humanity would be gone within a few thousand years. Are we sure there hasn't been life on earth with similar levels of intelligence that hasnt gone extinct?

This is not a homework question, but something I've been pondering for quite some time. We conduct most of our primary source research in archives, are they really that comprehensive and foolproof? What are its limitations? Any other things I should keep in mind while using archives?

For a bit of background info, I'm a first year undergraduate student studying the British Empire. Forgive me if this question comes across as ignorant, but I'm genuinely curious to know all about this institution we rely so heavily upon.

I suppose one is in the name: "inspiration" meaning inhalation. But when/where does this originate? Medieval Britain?

As my title asks I want to know if large cities formed in areas that wasn't on or near a major body of water (river, lake, sea, ocean) If any did what was the terrain like and why did it form their?

Also did any major cities form on rivers that had nothing upstream of them except the rivers source or uninhabited lands?

Edit: another question. Apart from the obvious reasons for founding a city. (Fresh water source, arable land) What other things made a place suitable for a village to grow.

Also if there are any books on the subject that people could recommend it works be awesome

Our American Cousin being the play Abraham Lincoln was watching when he was shot.

I was wondering where all the slaves, who immigrated to Canada during the antebellum years, went?

Black people make up a very small proportion of the modern Canadian population.

I just realized that I don't know much about history ! So I wanted to know about some books that would give me a good start .

Playing American Conquest, a narrative before the very first campaign (about Columbus' colonization) said that Portugal knew about the possible territories since 1470 and that there was some of the coast charted as early as 1452. How true is this?

I watched that old Kubrick classic 'Barry Lyndon' again the other day. There's a scene set in the Seven Years' War where the British march rather slowly at the enemy, taking several volleys before they presumably fire/bayonet charge (cuts out of the action at this point unfortunately). I was wondering if anyone knew whether this is just a common cliche exaggerated in every film or if it actually represents the common doctrine of the times, or if the truth is somewhere in between. (I would have thought you would want to cover ground as quickly as possible, surely organising the line to fire after a bit of a run wouldn't be too hard, considering the potential losses of the other tactic).

edit: just realised it should be to -1815, blame the Americans for burning the year 1812 into my subconscious :)

I had a history professor claim that many of the early Zionists terrorists eventually made their way into the Israeli government. It didn't sound right to me, is there any truth to the claim?

In the late 19th century America built a modern fleet second only in the world to Britain's. This coincided with much warmer Anglo-American relations. However when Germany began a naval build up(albeit accompanied by belligerent actions against France) it was strongly opposed by Britain. Why was this?

Argentina, Chile, the UK, France, Norway, Australia and New Zealand each claim some, but not all, of Antarctica. No state at all claims Marie Byrd land, and there is also an unclaimed territory of uncertain area around what would otherwise be the Norwegian claim's corner at the South Pole. Some of the territorial claims even overlap.

Why did these states select the claims that they did? Why didn't the UK (which was the first state to assert a claim) claim the entire continent?

I've asked this before but got no answer.

In particular are there any other sources other than Musashi's own account. It seems like a pretty bold claim. Also What would have been considered a duel in Musashi's time and era? Would it have been to the death? It seems like it would be difficult to learn anything without ever making a mistake.

My apologies if that question has been asked before - I have searched and read the FAQ without success.

In the beginning, Rome was one state in a diverse Italian peninsula - Sabines, Etruscans, Samnites, and later the Gauls, Greeks and Carthaginians. All of these tribes ostensibly had power comparable to, or greater than, the Roman kingdom and early Republic. On top of this, IF the legends are to be believed, Rome started out as an outcast colony without

And yet it was Rome who went on to subjugate their neighbors and form an empire. So what explains such a success? Was their military organization that superior? Did the Republican form of government give them an advantage? Was it - because it can happen - sheer good luck?

How long did slaves generally have to wait to be freed? Were there any cases of very remote plantations or farms that were able to keep the slaves insulated from the news and thus keep them enslaved longer?

Was there any sort of agency that enforced the freeing of slaves in the South? Is there any documented evidence of violence against these people? And when slaves were freed, was there any kind of financial or housing assistance given to them to help them get a new life started?