Would the personal memoirs of an individual written decades after an event be considered a primary source for that event? How do historians view such sources?

I've read that medieval cities and townships didn't ever conceive of themselves as say "french" in any real sense, even though when we look back at the history we often refer to things like "the nation of France". The ancient Greeks had the concept of the polis. And of course history is littered with empires. But where did the "nation state" come from? When did it start? When did the actual people, not just the monarchs, consider themselves to be living in a nation and that they were the same as the village a hundred miles away, because they were all "french", and not a collection of villages that viewed their neighboring villages as foreign?

Obviously I don't mean to limit this to France. I'm just using that as an example.

Was the seven years war technically the first real world war? I read somewhere that Churchill argued this historical point, he argued that because the seven years war had conflict and belligerents on every continent it was technically the world's first world war, therefore meaning that the great war of 1914-18 (abiding by the same factors) was actually the worlds second world war; rather than first.

As well as this what are the criteria for a world war? and are there any more debates over potential non-named / credited world wars?

Inspired by that meme.

In the Fourteenth century, Petrarch claimed that what we now consider the Middle Ages was a period of intellectual decline, which he titled the "Dark Ages." In what he referred to as Europe, he said that classical learning declined greatly. I understand this, while seeing the medieval renaissances as disproving this, but what was the medieval concept of the European continent? As far as I'm concerned, in the Selecluid and Sassanian Empires, classical thought was greatly preserved, and this was transferred to the Abbassid Caliphates. Did the coming of Islam create a divide between what we see as Europe, or did the average medieval person not think of continental borders?

In the most recent episode of GOT, there is a character who wears heavy plate armor in the middle of an almost impenetrable castle. Would knights or lords do this at all? Armor is heavy and took assistance in many cases to put on and take off, making it seem unlikely that people would wear it unless they were going to war or traveling.

What came before it? How did people come up with the idea of one god and all the stories in The Bible and such?

Sorry if this falls under the polls rule, I didn't see anything about book recommendations. I am specifically looking for good material on the Battle of Camaron, but general French Foreign Legion history is of interest to me as well.

A long with a few selected teams, this is one of the most famous futbol teams even over seas. Im wondering how did it happen: too many won cup? good financial choices? good publicity?

As far as I know, Hitlers goal was to create an arian-only world where all other races would have been eradicated or enslaved. And I assume that the reason he teamed up with the Japanese, Italians etc. is because he figured that extra soldiers fighting for germany would be useful.

But was Hitler planning another war betwene say Japan and Germany after the Allies would be defeated? Is this mentioned anywhere? Did Tojo or Mussolini know about the inevitable war betwene them and Germany? Did Hitler view the Japanese as "untemench" or as "pretty cool guys that can stick around after we conquer the world" ?

Basicly, what I want to know is. Did Germany actually like its allies or did they just tolerate them because they needed them?

Not only government response, but also mannerisms of gay men living in the era. As a gay man myself I found the differences quite shocking (e.g. a massive emphasis on sexuality in relationships as 'liberating').

How common was illegal human trafficking in the Empire? I guess more specifically how common was it for a group of people to have the explicit intent of kidnapping a person / group of people for the intent of illegally selling them into sexual slavery, forced labor, or forced marriage. Were there any 'hot spots' for risk of being taken by these groups, if it was ever that serious?

It seems such an illogical way to determine guilt, yet it is often referenced in books and tv-shows set in a medieval stage (namely Game of Thrones). Did people actually do this, or is it just an easy way to introduce a fight into a tv-show?

I thought it was interesting that Peter the Great is often called an absolutist ruler, frequently compared to Louis XIV, but acted very differently to him and often sympathised greatly with the common people to a huge extent. How is he regarded today?

I've read that comic books were fairly racist during and following World War II (mostly towards Asian peoples), but I'm confused about the ways in which comic books presented black Americans.

Were they more racist or progressive? Were they focused on integration into white America or black empowerment? Were these perceptions dependent upon different publishers?

Aside from All-Negro Comics (a one-off series in 1947), I can't find much information on black people appearing in comic books until the 60's with characters such as Gabriel Jones in Nick Fury's Howling Commandos or Black Panther who appeared in Fantastic Four in 1966 and got his own series in 1973.

Additionally, how heavily were comic publishers decisions on race dependent upon the bottom line, financially speaking? When black people were eventually incorporated into comics (and eventually had their own series), was the decision to do so based on predominantly financial or socially progressive reasons?

Lastly, what academic literature can I read on the subject to further my knowledge on the issue? (/u/Bufus)

Really, it's mind-blowing to me how Portuguese and Hindi could be related and that a Portuguese and a Indian might have come from the same people.

I mean, I know, if we go back at the beginning of human race, we all come from the same place. But isn't that TOO broad? If there's a Indo-European people/language branch it must mean there's another groups, right?

How come? How were these split?