At all of these big political meetings, I always wonder what people did for food. As someone with food allergies, that's always a top priority, especially in countries that use a lot of my allergies. Did everyone have Iranian cuisine? Did people chow down on borscht in Yalta?

Today Spanish is considered a good second language to learn. Did settlers in the 19th century Dakotas for example consider learning the Lakota language instead?

I know the question is broad, and the timespan is large, but I’m fine with an answer which outlines how over history attitudes towards monarchs changed, if at all, and how such attitudes were affected by the different cultures that varied across Europe; and furthermore, how such attitudes might have been affected by characteristics like class, religion, ethnicity, etc.

I was wondering whether the Roman Empire knew about the events in China that led to the formation of the Three Kingdoms and they both would’ve coincided with each other and was there any trade between them?

When we see maps of Europe of the late Medieval and the Renaissance era we usually see an assortment of smaller duchies, principalities and more rarely, some bigger state which encompasses many ethnicities and didn't really have a unified national identity. Then we see France, a comparatively massive blob of land, which had strong centralised rule (mostly) and where most people, apart from their local identity, saw themselves as culturally French. Why and how did France unite as a quasi nation-state so early?

I'm mostly wondering about how a university or college responded to events such as the Spanish Flu, or other pandemics/epidemics/plagues. Did they remain open and bring the student body back or were universities closed until the disease had passed?

The Japanese Soldiers in WW2 gave heavy resistance during the Pacific campaign in WW2. Russian troops swept through Japanese held Manchuria in a matter of weeks. I can't even fathom how an army could move through an area that large, that fast without any resistance. How did Russia pull off a victory so fast against the Japanese?

I’ve been doing a lot of research on Ukrainians in Galicia for personal family history, and after the downfall of Kievan Rus the general timeline is that Galicia was taken and incorporated into Poland, then Poland-Lithuania, and eventually Austria-Hungary before Ukrainian nationalism + independence happened followed by multiple relocations after ww2.

My great grandparents are Ukrainian from Galicia area that’s now part of Poland, with the men serving for the Austrian army in ww1 and eventually being relocated into northern Poland during Operation Vistula.

My general question is how did Ukrainian culture + Eastern Orthodox religion and specifically language survive in this area that wasn’t in “ruthenian” control for almost 700 years? Before the relocations and ww2 a good chunk of Galicia was Polish speaking and cultural at this point which makes sense after 400+ years of Polish control, but still almost 40% of the region was Ukrainian identity even though Ukraine/Ruthenia didn’t exist for so long?

Hello all I have a question what’s been on my mind for years and I hope I can get some good perspective on my views.

So as we all know ergotism was a big thing in the Middle Ages and beyond.

Really my question is what is the effect it had on society? (In you’re view)

From what I can tell it effected a lot of people and I truly believe people tripping out during the Middle Ages would of definitely had a effect on peoples beliefs I. Religion as there was no other explanation.

I’ve also heard of mass hysteria outbreaks and the Salem witch trials where all due to ergotism.

Would I be right in saying that ergot had a profound effect on society and peoples religious beliefs

Thank you :)

I understand that kings can’t be subservient to other kings, and given that Normandy was part of France, how did Philip react to having essentially a part of his kingdom just leave and join another kingdom? Was William still a vassal of Philip or did he declare independence? Did Philip know of Williams plans before the invasion took place and if so what did he do and was he ok with it?

For example, New Yorkers are seen as tough and loud and people from Seattle are seen as compassionate liberals. Would people from Pompeii be seen as drunkards due to their city's history as a major figure in the wine industry? Would citizens of the city of Rome be seen as rich snobs due to it being full of wealthy politicians?

I'm aware that civilizations like the Inca and Aztec knew how to work precious metals like gold and silver, and from what I understand many civilizations knew how to forge copper going back to 5000BCE. But do we have any evidence showing that pre-columbian civilizations used iron in any fashion, be it even just for jewelry or tools? And I would ask (though I'm sure I know the answer is yes) is it likely that, were foreign arrival delayed for a significant period of time, would Native American civilizations have learned to forge iron weapons and armor?

What was Hitler’s racist views toward anglosaxons, Danes, Norwegians, and Indian aryans?

Nicholas II rejected any ideas of constitutional monarchy in Russia until after the 1905 Revolution and the adoption of a constitution in 1906, but even then he did his best to maintain as much personal power as possible. Sultan Abdulhamid II revoked the Ottoman constitution and parliament established in 1876. Kaiser Wilhelm II, while nominally a constitutional monarch, still wielded considerable power over the German Empire and (at least to my understanding) he was blamed for being personally responsible for starting the war. Why did they all reject a constitutional system more like the British monarchy's, despite obvious growing support for one? Or is it more complicated than that? It seems to me that under a constitutional system, they'd still enjoy all the perks and priveleges of being royalty without having to deal with the messy business of playing politics and appeasing supporters in government.

What I really want to know is that if there was any kind of "buffer culture" between the large, expansive Incan empire and the smaller Amazonian tribes (let's say, east of the Andes in modern day Peru and Ecuador).

As a fan of the viking age I have frequently read that when the viking invaded anglo saxon England, there raiding parties were composed of warriors that were trained and simply too much for the saxon militias to handle.

It is often emphasised that the saxon militias were composed of farmers who did not stand a chance against the vikings.

But this does not quite make sense to me, as werent these vikings themselves also a militia of sorts? ie were they not farmers for most of the year who only raided during the summer? If so why were they such better fighters and warriors to the saxons?