After the Warring States period lasted so long how on Earth did Qin Shi Huang manage to change the future of China despite holding on to victory for such a relatively short period of time. Why didn't Chinese civilization just re-collapse into smaller states again almost immediately and why did Liu Bang keep most of the reforms?

Also, is the timeline before Qin Shi Huang reliable in China? I'm having trouble working out where the mythological history and foundation stories end and the real history begins.

How exposed to ideas from around the world would say, a trader or craftsman in say, Zanzibar, have been? How did these ideas shape the culture of East Africa?

Seeing as how India and China are close geographically and both boast vast ancient history why is it that their language hasn't had any direct influence on each other? Or has it and I'm not aware of it?

Followup: I've heard of former slave owners who left the usa for places like Brazil where slavery was still legal-would any have taken their slaves with them?

I remember reading somewhere that the tomato was called a "Poison Apple" or "Poison Love Apple", and that there were some misconceptions about green apples.

I am a historian, and reading 19th century/18th century handwriting can be the death of me.

This got me thinking, in the 18th/19th centuries, were there people who had awful handwriting that couldn't be deciphered by readers then?

I ask because I can read pretty much any modern english handwriting. Through proctoring tests and grading there is nothing I can't read. I suppose it is because I am used to it.

Back when, were there instances of people not being able to read each others handwriting and giving up or, because they were used to seeing the writing style, could usually decipher writing.

A friend and I were having this discussion of the probability that an average citizen of medieval Europe would have met a person of different race. He claims that it would be very common, as land trade routes from China and Egypt were very common. However, in my (rather shocking) defense, I talked about the "Human Museum" in Belgium in the 1800s which had Black People, suggesting that it was still rare for them to have seen one personally. To make it slightly more specific, let's consider the 1400s, and France/ HRE in our sample. Which of us would be right?

Would Winston Churchill or any other of the Allie's leaders have been aware of the US's plans? What about the Axis powers?

Also extra question: Why do mizrahi jewish temples have cool neon lights unlike the the ashkenazi ones

I was reading the London prize ring rules which states.

'That in future no spikes be used in fighting boots except those authorized by the Pugilistic Benevolent Association, which shall not exceed three-eights of an inch from the sole of the boot, and shall not be less than one-eight of an inch broad at the point; and, it shall be in the power of the referee to alter, or file in any way he pleases, spikes which shall not accord with the above dimensions, even to filing them away altogether.'

I know that in the middle ages across much of Europe war consisted less of a series of battles as a series of sieges. Defenders were rarely keen on open battle unless forced or strongly in their favour.

It's a general assumption that castles had to be taken, or at least invested. Perhaps the answers are obvious, but my question is exactly why this had to be done?

Given that garrisons were generally fairly small compared to armies, what trouble would they cause if left behind? (Assumption here: how large were garrisons when reinforced in wartime?) How did a castle control the space around it? Purely by physical position (eg. right next to an important road or town)? Or by allowing a defender to project small forces to difficult places, disrupting lines of communication, etc.?

What examples do we have of castles and their garrisons causing problems for invaders after being bypassed or breaking out?

Related question: to what extent was the taking of castles symbolic, a sign of success rather than a more tangible military benefit?

This is a broad question, but I just want to get an overall feeling. Was the Orient Express price the same as Emirates first class ticket? Was the medieval spices the analog of modern lobster? The castle the same as a mansion overlooking NYC Central Park?