I was reading up on the history of the Renaissance for a class and I was wondering, did the humanists of the Renaissance know that they were in a golden age? Or was the Renaissance a period of time that wasn't realized fully until after its passing?

I wasn't sure whether to ask here or go to /r/AskScience, but since this seems like it's mostly a decision made by humans to distinguish between the two, I figured I would ask here.

There's no physical separation between the two continents (to my knowledge) that would define a separation of landmass from one or the other. I know N. Am. and S. Am. aren't technically separated either, but you can clearly see the distinction between continents.

So why are Europe and Asia not considered one massive continent?

I suppose there are 14 questions in there. I'm basically looking for the events in each country that led to powerless monarchs.

Are there any grand lessons to learn about how monarchs lose power?

A friend of mine is looking for pictures to put in a book she is publishing about the Attica Prison Riot. The problem is that all the pictures that she can find online are owned by the Attica Prison and they want $350/picture. The riot went on for days, it was big national news, there are other photographs out there - but where?

New York state has actively suppressed access to these materials for decades and the New York historical society pretends that the event never took place.

So... Where would I be able to find unowned pictures? Are there any good historical websites, resources, etc.?

Modern film set in the middle ages (900 to 1300 ish) often shows royalty enjoying brass fanfares and lyric odes, but Is this really what they listened to? How highly was music valued and what type did they listen to?

I just finished Paddy Griffith's book on battle tactics of the American Civil War, Rally Once Again. He comes to some interesting conclusions that don't match up with the ideas prevalent in other books I've read on the conflict.

I won't do justice to his argument, but I will try to sum it up. Griffith argues that the ACW was not the first war using modern tactics (trench warfare, no more cavalry, etc) but the last using Napoleonic tactics.
Griffith argues that the improved firepower of the Civil War did not make it a modern one. He says that cavalry could still have been very relevant, and that it was, even with the sabre, when properly used, that artillery still could operate aggressively and forward, and that even with rifle muskets infantry still slugged it out at Napoleonic ranges.

He also argues that the common fortifications of the Civil War were not brought about by necessity and increased firepower, but by a engineer mentality that set in as the armies tired of battle in late 1863 and 1864.

Griffith believes that shock tactics were poorly understood by most officers, and therefore most battles were rather indecisive bloodbaths, bloody by nature of their length and not because of increased firepower. Decisive victories could have been possible, he argues, had tactics like the "Zouave Rush" been implemented on a large scale.

He also argues that technological innovations had less affect on the armies than is usually believed. Railways and steam power offered mobility, but Griffith says these gifts were usually made moot by the cautious nature of generals. It is to 1870 we must look for the first modern war, says Griffith.

Next to these conclusions in my book, a previous reader has written "Crud", "Bunk" etc. I was surprised by Griffith's conclusions, because they're the opposite of what I have usually learned, as I said.

So, tl;dr, do Griffith's claims have any truth to them, or is he way off the mark?

I've been looking for an answer to this on Google, but have yet to find a reason. I think it's really fascinating that all her daughters had the first same name, and was thinking maybe it was an Austrian tradition, or related to religion somehow?

I'm still trying to find my sea legs when it comes to history (especially pre-modern and early modern history), but I recently read about Oliver Cromwell and his campaigns in Ireland and Scotland following the deposition of Charles I. I'm honestly curious as to the extent of the campaigns Cromwell carried out in these areas. Did he only go after armed forces? Were civilians targeted as well? What are the estimated death tolls?

I'm not sure where to start looking for reliable info on something like this, so any recommendations of more reliable sources of information on Cromwell's campaigns would be appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read my question!

I was playing everyone's pseudo-history generator, Europa Universalis, and Genoa starts the game with a colony/enclave in the provinces of Kaffa and Azow, in Crimea. Why there? Seems awfully far from home.

It's a topic that I've been thinking about a lot recently. I find military history very interesting, and after a fair bit of reading it's very clear that most campaigns are decided before two opposing soldiers ever see each other. I only catch glimpses of it really, when reading about the Greeks or Romans in reference to major strategy, with statements like 'the Romans would have their supply lines in pace or arranged so that their army was well fed and watered while the enemy fought hungry'. But it never really explains how.

The scale just seems so absurd that it's hard to visualise. How do you even move an army of 50,000 men, let alone keep them nourished and remotely happy without modern ration packs and transportation! Plus things like weapon production, I do blacksmithing, it would take me a long time to make a sword using modern steel and tools, just how many blacksmiths did they have to arm an army, and how much did it cost?

I'm looking for a book that will cover the basics on how these things were done, ideally covering something like the late Classical period through to Napoleonic- obviously this is very specific and I won't find anything perfect, but that's roughly what I'm after, and idiot's guide so I can get a feel for how it was organised, and how it adapted over time!

I've often heard that even if the Archduke hadn't been assassinated, WWI was eventually inevitable due to the high state of tensions in Europe in the early 20th century.

What specifically drove these tensions? I know neocolonialism was involved, but in what ways? What specific incidents/turning points drove the lines being drawn and the Central & Allied powers aligning with one another?

Do we know what Americans sounded like in 1776? Did they have accents that we would recognise today as American? Were there regional dialects?

This came up between myself and my wife while watching Outlander. She mentioned they never wore anything under their kilt and they rode for days on end sometimes which got me to thinking about the state of their 'manhood' for lack of a better word. I mean, if this is true, wouldn't they be heavily damaged or at the least calloused like concrete?