Considering that civilizations developed in other areas relatively quickly, South and central America for example, was there a reason it didn't happen in Sub Saharan Africa?

I heard we British went to war with the colonies, but the colonies were still full of un-disolved European immigrants right? Wasn't there a lot of squabbling about fighting what they considered their still-countrymen? Or did many there consider themselves plain American through and through?

How has women's rights affected women throughout history? How are they affected today?

In Game of Thrones there's a bank that "always gets its due". It lends to noblemen and kings but is entirely independent of their politics (it seems like). If one nobleman fails to pay them back they will back another who will take his place -- and their debts.

It just seems like an independent bank is a modern concept. A power like that historically would be taken over and become the "Royal Bank".

Or if not one and the same, Nabonidus being a son named after his progenitor? They were both named to honor Nebu, who may have been the patron god of there dynasty. I see no reason the prince-regent of both myth and history Belshazzer having served a father and son. It would explain Nebonidus' mysterious ascendance to the throne, Belshazzar's LONG term period as an advisor, and the historical entity who went into the desert for seven years.

So what stops hem from being on and the same, or at least related?

Edit: I obviously mean Nebuchadnezzar the II.

Are there any accounts from Native Americans regarding Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park? I know of the documented accounts from American travelers, but I was curious if there is any archeological/historical accounts from the Native American point of view.

Did they just forage in the surrounding countryside? Or were there wagons that moved along? What about on long campaigns like the Crusades where they couldn't necessarily be supplied via navy?

I'm a children's book editor.

I'm receiving a lot of push back for the decision to use the terminology: "enslaved people" vs. "slaves" in a book i'm editing about the Underground Railroad. From what I've read, this is the terminology most current academics and historians are using in order to dignify those who endured such heinous conditions. As this was a condition placed upon them (ergo the adjectival use of "enslaved" as opposed to the nominative "slave"), opting to use "enslaved people" instead of "slave" consistently reminds the reader that the enslaved were first and foremost people. While "slave" reduces someone fundamentally to the condition placed upon them - stripping them of their humanity.

Does anyone have any experience with this? Any articles or books I can cite?

I was readin Life of Sulla by Plutarch and in a few sections, it seems like Sulla may have liked Archelaus romantically.

[Sulla] was eager to have a personal conference with Archelaüs.

And when Archelaüs fell dangerously ill at Larissa, Sulla stopped his march, and cared for him as if he had been one of his own commanding officers.

Then he reproached him bitterly and denounced him for what he had done, and asked him again if he would keep the agreements made through Archelaüs. And when he said that he would, then Sulla greeted him with an embrace and a kiss, and later, bringing to him Ariobarzanes and Nicomedes the kings, he reconciled him with them.

Now, this could just be a matter if me not understanding Plutarch correctly, reading too much into it, but could it be supported with evidence?

After watching gladiator on Netflix, it got me thinking just how easily someone on a horse could be dismounted in hand to hand sword and spear combat.

It seems like a jab to the side of the horse would render it immobile and fall flat on its face.

Did the Romans take caution in ensuring their horses were well armoured? Or am I underestimating just how much of a beating a horse can take?

I am doing a mock trial and I have to be Cesare Borgia, I'm curious on how he would be introduced when he walks into a room. Also, if anyone has any tips or uncommon info I can use to be his character better, it would be much appreciated. I'm being charged for murder, Guelph and responsible for Machiavelli's "end is justified by the means" Thank you again for any help.

Sorry if this was posted before. I looked through this subreddit and didn't see many questions regarding this period.

After reading Asoiaf I've become very interested in the topic and would like to read up on it. Aside from wikipedia, what can read or watch to give me a better understanding of the events that took place?

I'm sure that people were being shocked by static electricity and electricity in general long before Benjamin Franklin and his key. I'm just wondering what people thought it was or how they rationalized its occurrence.

Having looked at the FAQ I hope this isn't considered too vague, but I'm really interested in what have been the largest and most prosperous trade routes in history, land or sea.

I've put before 1800 because I am thinking about potential topics for my dissertation, and the thought of studying trade routes sounds very interesting and something I'd like to more about - and generally my interest in history is before this date.

I know the Venetian Republic had a prosperous trade before its collapse, and Britain of course had a large network, but I'm sure there are more vast trading routes that I am not aware about.

I just read something about Georges Boudarel, a French member of the Viet Minh who allegedly sadistically tortured French prisoners after the fall of Dien Bien Phu. Was he the only one? I couldn't find anything on anyone else.

He was an incredibly skilled and gifted commander, he was quite vital to the early revolution, pulled some stunning victories from nowhere yet it seems like at every turn, someone was going out of their way to ruin his reputation and degrade him.

Sorry if this is a dumb question. My guess is they don't, for the same reason the country is referred to as "the United States is" instead of "the United States are", emphasizing national unity and whatnot, but I don't know where to confirm this.