As an AP World History student, we sort of flew through this topic, and I found the entire time period of the Pax Mongolica very interesting. And as I know that underpopulation of an extremely large land empire was one of the major reasons for Mongol decline, it doesn't seem right that the Mongols would be able to efficiently make the silk road safe for trade.

From what I have read Nikita Khrushchev was very disgruntled about not being allowed to visit Disneyland because of worries over security. He came with his wife and adult children. Does anyone know of his history or knowledge of Disney cartoons or films prior to his visit that would have made him act the way he did?

It seems like more earthy/camouflaging colours were suddenly used for uniforms and such things around the start of the 1900s. Why did they think the benefits of these uniforms suddenly outweighed the benefits of bright ones? What changed?

I guess I should say for the European, North American or any modern armies of the time. Did they change all at once or not?

Also, why were planes brightly coloured for much longer?

(Sorry if this has been asked before)

Also, why did Denmark switch sides?

Lighter than air ships have been used since the late 19th century in warfare: being slow and easily spotted how did they defend against infantry and artillery fire?

Once upon a time, generals and even emperors directly participated in battles, leading cavalry charges and such. In more modern times, high-level military commanders, and especially national leaders, find themselves far and away removed from combat, leading from behind friendly lines or miles away on another continent.

What are some examples of very high-ranking officers directly participating in combat, whether out of necessity or on purpose, in more contemporary conflicts (primarily from US or other major belligerent nation)? I have heard of this occurring a few times among "high-level" brass in WWII but don't remember the specifics.

Thanks

Okay, so I was watching a promo film for Vancouver from 1976 - which is really not a great source, obviously - and it mentioned that some people had thought, at least at that time, trade may have occurred between Asian populations and indigenous North American populations prior to white settlement. Is there any evidence to support this idea? I mean, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me - if Europeans could make it to the East Coast over the ocean I see no reason for Asians being unable to make it to the West Coast - but I've never heard it mentioned before nor have I seen anything to suggest so. So what's the truth of the matter?

So we are in a chapter that talks about the Roman Empire. In this chapter we are talking about Christianity and the Romans. I was discussing how the Christians were persecuted and killed, and one student asked how it compared to the Holocaust. I told her that that is not a question I can answer right now, since we have to get through this chapter, but I will try to answer it to the best of my ability during any upcoming free time.

Can you all help me figure out what to tell her in regards to similarities, and differences if they are relevant?

I am working on a research paper detailing the violence, friendship and trade that occurred over hundreds of years between Muslims and Vikings. It is seriously one of the most fascinating relationships I have ever began to learn about and it seems that it's only getting better.

Recently Patricia Sutherland, a brilliant archeologist, dated a Viking and european trade post in Canada all the way back to at least 1200 AD. Now the Vikings had a good trade network set up with the Muslims but this would prove that an Atlantic, European, North African trade network from Indonesia all the way to Canada came about 500 years earlier than previously expected.

So, my question is, where can I find more information on this. More information on the relationship of Vikings and Muslims, and more on their prospective trade routes as well.

And of course if any of you have anything else, please feel free to share. All of this is pretty amazing.

Oh and sidenote, totally didn't know that Antonio Banderes from the 13th warrior actually was based off a real character, and that Viking hygiene was....catastrophic? Would that be a good word? It wasn't a very clean time.

The British professor. Where did he start to get more "off track" for lack of a better term.

From my understanding someone of nobility in 13th century England would not use a longbow, whilst it was a requirement for samurai (who I understand are the noble class of fighters) during 12th-15th century to use a bow.

What kind of proof a historian is looking for the prove the existence of someone?

What's the case for Jesus and Socrates? Are we sure they existed?

I read a few things on the late Roman empire and have a few questions about the Eastern Roman Empire.

There is the "new" theory contrary to gibbons that the (west) Roman Empire did not decline, but did in fact "evolve".

I suppose the eastern Roman Empire underwent a similar/analogous transformation, especially after the loss of the rich provinces of Syria and Egypt. How did state and society change? Did it become medieval/ feudal?

There is the often called trinity of roman state, Christianity and Greek culture, but how "roman" was the imperial administration and society?

Did the actors still actually speak their lines? Was it common for music to be played? Would the director yell cues or instructions more often since there wasn't sound recording?

I'm writing a story that takes place in the early years of the war, and obviously, I need it to be historically accurate. I wanted to know what Britain did (battles, political-assisstance, supplying, etc.) before they had to pull out in Dunkirk.