Some related questions: did people latch onto the 6,000 year value like many Christians do today, and if so was it considered heresy to believe it was older than 6000 years old? Did scientists and laypeople have different ideas?

What was the difference between a march and a normal county/duchy? I know that Marches were in the eastern borders of the Francian Empire, and were ruled by Margraves. But what was so special about them that they were a diferrent type of fief (by name at least) ?

Also, is the story off how some of the Hussars would take severed enemy heads and put them on their lances true?

Additionally, how large part of the population would actually benefit/use the different public facilities that we now think of as Roman such as public baths, theatres, colosseums etc. Would it be possible for only the urban population or did the rural population also have access to such facilities?

I'm reading In Defence of History by Richard J. Evans, and in his introduction he details historian's reactions to postmodernist critique of history, but doesn't really explain it very clearly (in my view at least). Could someone just clarify what the postmodernist critique is, and why it poses such a threat to the historical profession (he lists several alarming quotes from historians)? Also, bonus question, what is the New Historicists movement and what is its significance? Apologies if this has been asked before, I checked the FAQ but that didn't bring up anything (maybe I'm searching wrong).

And did any countries/languages continue to call it Constantinople despite the name change?

?

For example Cyprus has horned figurines with the most famous one being from Enkomi. The Nuragic people of Sardinia also depicted horned figurines and were contemporaneous with the Cypriot people.

And do they stop having any monetary value after the empire collapses - do people that still have the currency have no need for it anymore?

Did one Aussie guy go "hey we are in a different country and I want to speak differently now!" or what?

I never hear about this when learning about the space race, was this an actual thing?

In Medieval Europe we see that there is a lot of value placed on the lands in possession of an individual. They are known by their titles, the lands that they and their family have claim to, and the descent of people who possessed lands.

However I haven't seen much of that while looking over samurai and daimyo from the Sengoku era. Were they held primarily in the esteem of their clan? Their individual accomplishments? What would be the marker of a daimyo or a samurai you, for lack of a better term, didn't want to fuck with?

And how long did they survive?

I'm curious to know if there are any popular works that depict historians and the study of history as opposed to actual historical events. There are plenty of such works about the lives of artists, writers, scientists, anthropologists--heck, even mathematicians--but there does not seem to be any such fanfare regarding historians. Are we simply not dynamic enough to warrant such attention, or is there actually stuff out there in line with what I'm asking for?

I'm curious about how people viewed the WPA at the time. In my brief search on the topic, most references seem to come from people who were viewing the WPA from the outside.

I'm curious about how WPA workers saw themselves, and the work that they did. Was it part of a noble effort, or just something they did while the economy was tanking? Did workers see themselves as part of a group of good people who'd fallen on bad times, or did they tend to think of the other workers in harsher terms than they used for themselves?