From what I know, people in Ireland started speaking English after the English conquest, but Scotland wasn't really conquered, so I started wondering when did Scotland start speaking English? Was it always the case?

I know that sounds like a loaded question, but I heard this point a couple of times and never in detail.

Is there any validity to that statement?

Is there a good book that can shed some light on the matter?

Plato described his ideal version of a monarch in “The Republic” as a wisdom loving monarch who is both intelligent and desires to live a simple life. Historians regard Marcus Aurelius as one of these men. Are there any other historical examples of someone who is close to this ideal?

I hear conflicting opinions, and perhaps some true historians can set the record straight.

I've heard "yes they were going to surrender but they were nuked first." And I've heard "no they were not going to surrender and we had to nuke them as we had no other option and they wanted to keep expanding."

Correct me if anything I say here is inaccurate or plain wrong but my understanding has always been that Japan's peace feelers had at some point successfully communicated to the Truman administration (well in advance of the atomic bombings) that they would indeed surrender on the condition that Hirohito be granted immunity from prosecution and allowed to remain emperor. By the end of it, Japan would surrender unconditionally and Truman chose to grant Hirohito immunity and the right to remain emperor anyway, despite heavily insinuating prior that they would do just the opposite. In general, was there any strategically justifiable reason for him to insist on unconditional surrender? Forgive the bit of editorializing I'm going to add here, and this isn't to spark a tangent or debate about the bombings but just to frame why the answer to this question is so important, but if it is the case that Truman had no reasonable cause to reject a conditional surrender would that not suggest that his subsequent decision to use the atomic bombs on populated cities, regardless of any other considerations that were subsequent to the Potsdam Declaration, was monstrous and cruel?

I was wondering how they were doing it and wood of which tree was used in the production. Also what about the other nations in the early medieval ages like the germanic tribes during the Great migration period? Thanks!

I'm thinking as a specific example of the colored coats, musical instruments during battles, things like that. Compared to earlier plain swordfighting and even current day no-nonsense combat engagements.

Why is the cause of death always a suicide, I doubt they all got depressed and killed themselves, some of the romans I've read about that have the cause of death as suicide are:

Marcus Junius Brutus

Marcus Antonius

Gaius Cassius Longinus

And some more, why is this?

I want to know this because I recently learned about the Victims to Communism monument in Canada and also I want to know if:

1. The information about gulags and camps in Soviet Russia is substantiated by some evidence.

2. Or is it some sort of campaign by detractors.

3. If the atrocities were committed, who were the most targeted?

I am asking all these questions out of pure curiosity.

A response addressing all or some of them would be appreciated, as well as essential readings, if any.

So I just saw a comedy skit about schizophrenia and how the stereotype is “It’s the government watching me! They bugged my walls!” etc. but the usages of technology has heavily impacted our ideas of privacy so; what were olden times like for people with paranoid schizophrenia? We’re they religious zealots, hermits of legend or were they even documented to begin with?

Maybe the mainstream history books just leave them out (it wouldn't be the first time), but it appears that, while there were large tribes, and confederations of tribes who ruled over large amounts of land in the present day United States and Canada (like the Comanche), there doesn't seem to have been any significant empires. While cultures further south had a deep history of these kinds of empires stretching back for hundreds of years.

First, is this conception correct or have the mainstream histories left out a major native american empire(s) that were located in present day United States / Canada?

If this conception is true, why didn't native american empires develop in this region while they did develop further south in the Americas?

I have been going back through a few of my textbooks - mostly physics and chemistry - and I noticed that a *lot* of the people mentioned are German. Is there any specific reason for this?

More accurately, there are more well-known scientists than you'd expect from a relatively small population size, is this due to some institution, culture, or so on, or just random probability?

Just to be clear since the idea of what is "German" changes over the 19th and 20th centuries, I mean people from Prussia, Saxony, Wurttemberg, Bavaria, and Austria. I'm also just assuming that it is generally accepted that there are a lot of German scientists. If you need me to substantiate it, I can go through my textbooks and show how many times a german guy comes up, it's just time-consuming and not reeaally worth it if everyone can already agree on this.

​

Thank you!

In the US fear of higher education leading to communism seems to have been a prominent idea in public conciousness since at least the 1930s. Were there similar fears of radicalization occurring in pre-modern/early modern high education insitutions or even ancient insitutions of higher learning? Whatever "radicalization" meant to them

Was it the Israeli presence in Palestine? Or the American presence in Saudi Arabia? Or other reasons?

Also, as a side question, what were the main differences between the Supermarine Seafire and the Spitfire?

I remember being in a humanities class, and my professor was pretty blunt about defining feudalism: she said she didn’t know what it meant. I was taken aback at first, and to this day, I still don’t know what it exactly means.

What is feudalism, and did it really exist?

I have been listening to the "Revolutions" podcast and I am fascinated by Cromwell. I want to read a historically accurate biography of him. I appreciate your suggestions.

My question is mainly about Asia 1000 to 1500.

As far as I know, there were many influential city-states in Europe at that time, such as Venice or the cities of the Hanseatic League.And most of these cities were republics, at least for part of medieval period.

But in Asia, despite well-developed trade, there were no such self-governing cities. Why?Or do I simply not know enough about the history of this region?

I wonder that because finding dinosaur remains is not possible everywhere but surely in some places and you dont have to dig too deep and some are even exposed. So the chances of peopl3 finding them is there in my opinion. Are there any sources of head/bones being found and how did they explain it? Same goes for fossiles.