Rome fell during the 400s, but people in Western Europe still had a fascination with their architecture and history. Did they have a similar fascination with the Byzantines, since they were basically the eastern half of the empire?

I read an article recently that children in Russia are (basically) taught that the Russians' push from the East was a bigger factor in terms of defeating Germany than the Allied push from the West (including D-Day). And as many of us know, much emphasis is placed on D-Day and the Allied invasion in Western schools than the Eastern front of the European theater. Which front (for lack of a better term) had a bigger impact in defeating the Germans?

From what I understand, in earlier days, belief in things like evil spells and werewolves was considered pagan superstition. Then, sometime in the 15th century things turned around and Europe (or certain parts of it) became gripped by fear of witchcraft, leading to things like the trials of Gilles Garnier, Peter Stubbe, etc. What happened? Why would such a drastic regression occur seemingly randomly?

Why did a state that Washington had absolutely nothing to do with get named after him? Why wasn't Virginia just renamed?

Unlike the E. Hemisphere, the cultures of the Americas seem to almost exist in perfect isolation.

The nations of N. America knew nothing of the Maya. People in the Caribbean knew next to nothing of S. America. Inca didn't really know the Aztecs. Inuit didn't trade with the Nez Perce.

Now contrast that with the other side of the world.

Romans knew vaguely about the Chinese. The Chinese traded with east Africa. India knew of almost everyone. Egypt traded with many far-flung ports. Hundreds of ethnic groups were aware of the others.

So what was the case with the Western Hemisphere? Were they just thousands of years behind the East? Was this hemisphere just to thinly populated? Could it have been the strong nomadic nature of most of the population that prevented sophisticated states to develop that could have lead to more established trade networks?

“Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britain never, never, never shall be slaves.”

Having the strongest navy in the world seem to be part of the British self identity for centuries. Why did UK give up on that after WWII?

Can anyone shed some light on refrences for land claims, history of the area. Whether we can use the bible as a reliable source for claims, etc.

i am not interested in creating a religious or political debate, this isnt the place for that, purely curious in sources so i can do the prior in my own time.

I'm a freshman in High School going into my sophomore year, I'm doing Humanities (an AP-type class where English and Social Studies are combined) next year.

I need to pick 3 fiction books, each from a different one of 10 categories:

1. B.C. Time Period - European, Greek, or Roman Setting
2. Medieval Period
3. Renaissance/Reformation period
4. Industrial Revolution Period
5. Victorian Period
6. World War I
7. World War II
8. Post-World War II Europe
9. Russia/Soviet Union Region
10. Middle East Region

Each book should be 200+ pages. Thanks in advance!

I'm American, a literature professor, with a love of history. I am not an expert an I prefer second hand analytical narratives to primary sources. I would really like to focus on works that you professionals would recommend.

I'm a big big fun of Monty Python and I've seen lots of times their movies laughing evry single time! Of all the movies "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" isn't my favourite but it really is something special. As a matter of fact it may look just stupid (in the positive way of the term of course) but it's actauly, in my opinion, quite accurate representing Middle Ages in some peculiar parts. For example there is the trail to the whitch condamned by the scholastic sillogistic arguments which is strangely very accurate as she is proved to be guilty through a trial by ordeal which was really used even in the XVII century in Germany! And then in the movie there are also monks going through the villages punishing themselves, traces of poems and the popular way of living (taunting, marriages). Also the sight of the village all dirty and whith people dying of evry kind of disease resembles to some kind of realistic evry day reality! This are some of the things I found out, do you confirm this? Can you add anything? Do you think those are just coincidences? Let me know! (sorry for english grammar, I'm not mothertongue)

It's a fairly well established fact that the early middle ages were a period of intense deurbanization in most of Europe; the first major population recoveries did not begin until the 11th century, though they quickly built up steam. So: my question is, during a period in which cities basically do not exist, and the largest settlements in a given kingdom are a handful of towns of 1,000-10,000 individuals, and the vast majority of the population lives hand to mouth in agricultural settlements, how did skilled craftsmen function?

A sword, for instance, is a very specialized tool, requiring advanced knowledge far beyond that which a common blacksmith would possess. Would these bladesmiths cluster in the few towns, and anyone who wished to purchase one would have to make the trip in from the countryside?

After watching Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" episode on the country I'm very interested in learning more about what life was like under colonial rule.

I mean the process used of course. The modern day mill is used quite frequently at the factory I work at, and as an engineer, its interesting to kind of see the evolution of various things as a result of better tools. Examples of this include milling becoming automated via CNC machines. However, if people from years past wanted to do the processes that we typically use a mill for today, how did they do it?

I encounter this concept a lot, for example the proverb that states we borrow land from our children rather than inherit it from our ancestors. So why the difference from the Europeans who later colonized the Americas?