Like contemporary Latin speakers who can read ancient Latin texts aloud and understand them.

Its a simple but yet some times mind boggling thing I keep wondering. How did people speaking different languages first transfer their language to each other.

Of course if someone who spoke a dead language, lets use latin, was to talk to a person now or even in their age. How was communication between them ever possible. Simple stuff like what they call the Sun they would just point and repetitively say Sun in their language, but as you start to get more complicated words and sentences, how were you able to ever understand if you've never experienced this language before.

Today we have languages classes which is so helpful and handy but how have people learnt other languages without those and still understand all the thoughts and ideas they were able to transfer between speech. Language started thousands of years ago but if I was just dropped off in the middle of a pacific island with a native tribe and had to fend for myself, how would I ever be able to learn their language from just guessing alone. Sorry if my question sounds really uncertain about what Im asking.

Digression encouraged as usual.

I just finished a one semester course covering history from the Industrial Revolution up to the present, and it was great. Now I'd like to get the bits from the Renaissance up to the Industrial Revolution, but I'd like to do it self-taught. Any recommendations on books that are reasonably comprehensive and objective, but aren't course text books that will cost me $200 a pop? I'm particularly interested in books that include excerpts from primary sources.

I've heard that the British government prepared for mass hysteria in the event of a German bombing. However, purely from anecdotal accounts from relatives, I learned that London did not complexly panic. Why did the bombing not have its intended effect of completely scaring Londoners?

What were some of the more popular ring styles before the diamond became the standard? Were they largely gem-free?

So I'm diving into Korean culture, history, and am teaching myself the language since I'll be moving there in November. I loaded up my Netflix with K-dramas and I've started with the historical films. Now, based on what I've seen of American historical fiction, I don't expect Korean historical fiction to be any more accurate, but I can't seem to find historical accuracy corrections online, so I was hoping r/askhistorians could help me out.

tl;dr, don't trust K-historical dramas, can someone on here clear stuff up for me?

Just finished watching "The Servant: The Untold Story of Bang-ja." Basic premise of the movie is an inter-class romance. Chunhyang is the daughter of a nobleman (not present) and a geisha. Bang-ja (a.k.a. In Dong) is the son of a noblewoman and his concubine. Thanks to the workings of a jealous servant girl who manipulates Bang-ja's half-brother, but fully noble-born Li Mongyong, Chunhyang and Bang-ja are charged with inter-class adultery. Apparently their relationship wouldn't have been a problem if Bang-ja was noble, and no one would have cared if Chunhyang was low born. Or if the gender's were switched, no one would care either. Mongyong takes the manipulative servant girl as his concubine. So here are my questions since I have to take all of this with a grain of salt:

1. Were there really geishas in medieval Korea? Did the custom arrive from Japan or is this just a complete fabrication?

2. Were inter-class relationships really illegal and punishable by death? Presumably, it only went one direction (a highborn female sleeping with a lowborn male). What's the story here?

3. Why was Bang-ja (the product of a nobleman and a concubine) lowborn, but Chunhyang (the product of a nobleman and a geisha) highborn? In the film, they specifically say that Chunhyang is noble, "because her father is noble." But so is Bang-ja's!

4. What's with those hats? Are they just a status symbol? Should I trust the costume and architecture of the K-historical dramas as accurate?

Thanks in advance!

I've done some research on this question, but the answers I've found have only given somewhat of a play-by-play of things that went wrong, but never give a REASON things turned sour.

When Hitler invaded the USSR, quick and "impressive" gains were made, yet ultimately Germany failed to seal the deal with capturing Moscow, why is this?

There were articles published in US newspapers of the time saying (paraphrasing) that Germany would slice through Russia in a matter of 8-10 weeks. Even British intelligence had come to this conclusion.

Was it strategic mistakes made by Germany, or was the USSR really good at hiding their capabilities from the allies, that lead to such a dramatically different result from predictions by experts of the time?

Most of the articles that I've read mention slavery in passing, is there anyone who explicitly situates slavery and slaves in settler colonial societies?

As a member of the militia he would have worn red in his earlier years (I think). But did he lose the red in favor of white when he became commander in chief during the revolution? Or was there a specific point at an earlier time?

Thanks for the help!

How were they treated, and seen by both the government and public?

I recently discovered my great grandfather was a German prisoner of war, named Kurt Wagner (I am not totally sure on the name/spelling). He had raped my Romani great grandmother when she was thirteen, in Essex, and left. I'd be grateful for any help in tracking down the man he was.

At one point or another the Normans seem to have branched out to England, Ireland, North Africa, Sicily, South Italy and Antioch. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other, less well-known territories too.

Was there any web of allegiance, relationship or network between these states? I understand various families such as the Hautevilles were involved in many of these endeavours but I cannot find much suggesting there was any official 'brotherhood' between these territories.

Ive been thinking about the idea of mutually assured destruction and how much it plays into the popular idea of what a nuclear war would look like. We all envision an apocalyptic scene where every American/Soviet city is in ashes but I really cant imagine that was the intent of the military planners.

Has there ever been any declassified documents explaining what a response from one of the superpowers would have looked like? Were the US and USSR really planning on destroying every living thing within there opponents borders or were the plans much more tactical including some sort of "Invasion" forces capitalizing on the situation? Was it an eye for an eye situation (they shoot 1 we shoot 1) Or was it closer to 1 shot from you means were emptying our entire arsenal?

Thanks in advance!

I don't know exactly how to be specific about this but I was looking for something approachable (I'm a historic newbie) that talks about the great voyages out to find new lands, trade passages and new people.

I've been reading a little about Iceland, Greenland and Canada. The Norse keep popping up. Perhaps something on them?

Again, I apologize if this isn't too specific I'm just very curious how the folks of old could strike out so boldly across the oceans with only hope in their hearts.

Thanks AH, I love this sub!

PTSD in modern warriors is widespread knowledge and they are given respect and treatment for what they endured.

However were the warriors in the past given as much respect for their mental issues, or were they brushed aside and labeled weak/cowards?

Please let me know if I can clarify the question further. I have no specific time period in mind, whatever insight you may have on this subject is much appreciated.