As a follow up, where there other dialects kicking around other parts of France and England at the time that have faded into obscurity (other than old English)?

I've heard a lot of mixed information, could some clear it up for me?

I was wondering if in recorded history, there was a respectable people who were doing well, yet refused to trade with other peoples.

Because in all of history, it is clear that trade is always of the upmost importance, yet I don't see many examples of anyone refusing to trade. I'm sure there must be some group out there who refused to trade for whatever reason, and I was wondering how they did.

As far as I can tell, the term "Middle Ages" appears to refer to the time periods in between Classical history and Renaissance history, with those two latter forms of history considered to have thematic and academic kinship.

This doesn't seem particularly even minded to me. It defines the period between the fall of the ancient Roman Empire and the fall of Constantinople (if we take the Renaissance as beginning in 1453), and therefore in relation to a different prominent civilisation, rather than defining the period (or periods) by their own traits. If we take the Renaissance as beginning when Constantinople falls, then we're also defining the end of the Middle Ages by the ending of the Eastern Roman Empire... which appears to me to be equally unrelated to what the Middle Ages actually "contained", so to speak.

As a follow-on question:

If there is a school of thought that argues that defining the Middle Ages by the standards of Classical and Renaissance history is incorrect, where does that school of thought place the beginning of the Renaissance? If the notion of judging the Middle Ages by way of different historical periods is rejected, is a period known as "the Renaissance" even a required way to think about immediately post-medieval Europe? Or would it be more correct to say that the Renaissance begins at roughly Time X, but the Middle Ages continue in parallel until Time Y?

Sorry, these are possibly difficult and contentious topics in medieval and Renaissance studies. But the more I read about the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the more I find some distinctions arbitrary.

My question stems from a lack of knowledge of the empire as a whole. In Jerusalem, the Jews seemed to be able to practice Judaism and maintain their temple until it was destroyed in around 70CE. Were citizens in other parts of the empire able to decide which deity to worship?

EDIT: As a followup question, what are my choices of non-emperor worship?

It seems to me that slavery was prevalent throughout Roman history. Is this so, and when did this begin? And more importantly, why was the institution of slavery so important to the functioning of the Roman economy -- why, for instance, did they not simply utilize wage labor instead, or corvee labor, or what have you? Didn't this institution have drawbacks?

And secondly, When Marx writes about different modes of production, between the primitive and feudal he tends to describe a mode known as "slave society" or sometimes "asiatic". For any who might be acquainted with his analysis, does it hold water? Does ancient Rome and its institutions of chattel-slavery actually represent a distinct "mode of production"? (Edit ~ And to clarify, what exactly is unique about this slave-society as a mode of production that renders it distinct from slave-ownership under Capitalism, such as in the American South?)

I'm entirely unfamiliar with the way war was carried out in what we now call the Middle East. I'd like to hear a description of things like: equipment, unit types, formations, generals, etc for the early days of Islam. Thanks for the answers!

In Africa, the Bantu expanded from Cameroon with the edge of iron and agricultural techniques and eventually either displaced or absorbed the native Pygmy and Khoisan people in almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast, the Indo-European people are believed to have not genetically replaced the inhabitants of Europe and merely spread their language.

What accounts for the difference in results of the two peoples' migrations? Both had potent advantages over their neighbors and their languages dominate much of their respective continent.

Additionally, I have a question about the Bantu expansion. When the interactions between Bantus and the Khoisan are mentioned, literature often says that the Bantu "pushed" the Khoisan and Pygmies into their current territories. Did the Bantu "push" the Khoisan and Pygmies the same way the Americans "pushed" the Native Americans into reservations?