Hello, AskHistorians!

I saw the FAQ and questions here regarding English, but what about French?

I am a native French speaker and I am curious how far I could go back in time and still be understood. I am a literature buff and philosophy graduate student and in my readings, I have come across 16th century literature (François Rabelais) and was able to read it. But could I go further in terms of written French? And what about spoken French?

Thank you!

Did the Swedish Empire have any colonies?

I was just watching the news and saw the ISIS flag and it got me thinking

If I need to be more specific: how about late 19th/ early 20th century in Europe or North-America.

And, if it is accurate, what would a clergyman have told you three hundred years ago if you asked him whether something like the Garden of Eden story actually happened?

I just remember a professor, who liked to think he was was there, mention that while the US was involved, a full 20% of the country got air conditioned, where there was no air conditioning before. Whatever that means.

Thinking back, I'm wondering if there might be some great stories and specific history behind this stat.

If not, where did they believe the animals originated?

here in Indonesia we celebrate 10 november as the day of heroes to remmember when allies attack city of surabaya. our history class only tell the reason of this attack was because our nation reject the ultimatum given by the allies to dismantle weapon that we took from japan army and the dead of allies officer AWS Malaby.

For the sake of clarity, lets say this is during or at least around the reign of Augustus.

Also where is important too it seems!

What do people recommend as good books on the subject? I checked the askhistorians book list, but it didn't have a section on the thirty years war.

Hello, I was just wondering if there are any records of large squads of Nazi / German troops fighting along side the Allies during WW2? I'm pretty sure that I've heard Germans joining the Allies near the end of WW2, but I'm just wondering if it happened before that. Thank you!

I want to emphasize that their achievement of a working democracy is remarkable, but I am curious if their policies are "any good".

I know that Lenin did have deteriorating health, but Stalin was a power freak who certainly had reason to kill him. So is there any legitimacy to that claim?

As it says on the tin, What did the Native Americans call the American Continents before the Europeans came?

First off, I'm sorry if my writing comes off rough. I'm typing on a cellphone and I often have issues formatting and spelling on it. Anyway, I've been taking a history class in college and I'm often left with more questions than answers. My professor seems either unwilling or unable to answer any question outside of the course work. He often states, "It's a whole other can of worms now worth getting into right now." and that's the end of it.

The thing that I'm struggling with the most is democratic behavior in the 1860s. Democrats seem to drag their feet at any progression and the Republicans are fighting at every avenue to support what was at the time referred to as the "Freedmen". After reading about all the hardship freed former black slaves went through I was excited to read about the Freedmen's Bureau(which operated as aid for black men in need of education and work) and I was filled with rage when I read Andrew Johnson vetoed this Bereau in favor of the Black Codes.

What confuses me is how this seems in opposition of democrats and republicans today. Our Democrat President of the United States is, of course, a Black man. The popular view of republicans today is that of white men fighting against the rights of minorities and the view of Democrats being the polar opposite. I'm in no way saying this is the truth of all Democrats and Republicans, I'm just talking about the public perception. I consider myself an independent and don't align myself 100% with either party.

With the celebration of the 200 years of the burning down of the White House in the war of 1812, I had the occasion to have many discussions with friends, and especially french canadians. One of them told me that unlike what most people in Canada seem to believe nowadays, the war of 1812 isn't in any way the start of the creation of a "canadian" identity, distinct of a british one.

In fact, he went even further and said that even at the time of WW1 and the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the concept of "canadian", as something that the inhabitants of the provinces would consider themselves to be, didn't really exist, and that this "canadian" identity would slowly build up only well in the 20th century.

Basically, he said that the concepts of The War of 1812 and the Battle of Vimy Ridge as "defining moments" of the canadian history were only really recent construction, intended to build a distinct canadian identity after WW2 in a world where Canada was culturally too close to the new cultural hegemon, the USA, and too far from a United Kingdom bankrupted and that definitely fell from its precedent position of World power and colonial empire.

But he didn't stop there. He argued that one of the main reasons the "canadian" identity is only a really recent creation is because for a very long time, in fact until WW2, the canadians didn't want to be canadians, because they thought of themselves as british first and foremost, but also because from the moment Britain took "Canada" from France until WW2 the only "canadians" were actually the "canadiens" (french for canadian), ie the french speaking people living in Canada, and that the "canadians" didn't want to be associated with the "canadiens".

He said that unlike the "canadians" the "canadiens" had developped a distinct identity for a long time already when the british conquered them; distinct from the british, from the "canadians", from the "americans" but especially from France, and that they didn't think themselves as french anymore when the Ancien Régime fell in France.

He said that the word and concept of "Canada" were actually related heavily with french canadiens before the rise of both Canadian identity and Québec nationalism. He added that the canadian national anthem, along with pretty much all what makes the "classic" canadian identity, so the lumberjack, the Mapple leaf, the Mapple syrup, the fur trapper etc. were symbols of the canadien identity and were associated with the "RoC" (Rest of Canada like the franco like to say) only really recently.

Admittedly, if it wasn't clear enough, the guy who told me all that is pretty biased : he is a Québec independantist, he is really involved in, and he has tendancies to relate everything to dichotomy anglo/franco. It can be overwhelming sometime, especially since most people, even french canadians, seem to care way less that what he likes to think.

But while I am pretty sure that life is more complex than seeing everything in black and white like he does, he is also really well read, honest (I mean, he's my friend), and pretty convincing.

I realize that Quebec produce nearly all the maple syrup in the world, and that the canadian national anthem was a french anthem before being adopted as the national anthem of Canada, but is there any truth to the rest ?

Did canadians thought of themselves as british until really recently ?