It's common knowledge that Eastern silks and spices were valuable commodities in Rome, but what goods came from Europe that were in high demand amongst the Chinese and Indians and other east Asian cultures?

A quick googling turned up an article which said something along the lines of - "Back in the old days men dressed themselves, hence the right side due to right handedness. Women on the other hand were dressed by others, so instead it was on the left."

This doesn't make sense to me, surely every woman back in the day didn't have someone to dress her. Does anyone have any real source on the subject?

I often see Native Americans portrayed using a bow and arrow for hunting. You also see the bow and arrow used by various forces throughout history, from the Mongols to the Persian Empire and many more.

Given the relative isolation of the Native American population, after the initial migration across the Bering Straight land bridge, and up until the beginning of European colonization in the new world, where did Native Americans get bows and arrows?

Did they invent bows and arrows completely independently of their invention and use on the Eurasian continent? Or was the bow and arrow something they had access to prior to their migration across the Bering Straight?

When and where was the bow and arrow first invented?

Edit: Mongrels to Mongols.

Just wondering if it was a side effect or maybe a major driver of the Hollocaust

I don't have a very good understanding of Indian history, so I'm interested in picking up some good books, mostly on pre modern history. What are the must haves, something comparable to scholarship by Jonathan spence, John Fairbank or William Rowe on China? I checked out the master list, but I didn't see any books on India.

So I have just wrapped up the above text as part of my required readings for a university course (if this would fall under the "homework help" rule, mods please message me and I will amend the question immediately).

Considering our professor emphasized the readings quite heavily over the course of the semester I was wondering if someone with more knowledge regarding the time period could help me 'connect the dots', so to speak, between the events described in the text.

Essentially I am having trouble linking the chain of events from the moment of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to Germany’s move into Belgium.

Follow up question (that may be possibly answered by addressing my main question). Was the war inevitable at that point due to nationalism, militarization, and the alliance structures in place? Or am I missing something in this 'chain of events' that Sperber seems so keen to highlight?

Thank you in advance for helping me make sense of this turbulent time in European history!

I'm writing a novel that involves an extensive underground intelligence network, set back in the day. I'd like to style it after late feudal france, if that helps. Is there anywhere I can read extensively about spies, how they communicated, maybe some examples of assassins at work, maybe even what the average spy did during his day-to-day activities? I'd help a lot. Thank you.

Also, why is it so much more wealthy?

I was just listening to Dan Carlins podcast (Wrath of the Khans part I) when he mentioned this in passing when talking about the Steppe tribes. Is this correct? It seems kind of unlikely, especially given the definition of marriage used in the rest of his descriptions.

I'v seen it alot in media but I am wondering if it's ever actually happened.

I know I would have received several very large bonuses on top of a land grant, plunder, and my regular pay. As a veteran, my loyalty would have been a valuable commodity during the civil wars.

If I managed my money well, how well-off would I be when I decide to hang up the gladius?

EDIT: If I didn't have enough service to be discharged by Julius Caesar, pretend I enlisted before 58 BC

There's a NY Times article that makes it sound like this is no longer accepted as fact; I'm wondering what the consensus among historians is at this point.