I can't think of any examples of evidence of large-scale, stone monuments from ancient Native American or Canadian cultures. It seems that every other continent has them (i.e. Pyramids in Africa, Stonehenge in Europe, etc.) I know Mexico and South America have them, which is all the more puzzling to me because I am under the impression that they were the last places to which homo sapiens migrated. So why didn't cultures in present-day United States and Canada develop stone working along with the rest of the world?

I was reading a book and there was a throwaway line about Count von Zeppelin being an official war observer for Germany in the American Civil War. I looked up this position and was surprised that it was fairly common. I was curious about how it arose, how it worked, and why it even happened in the first place. Being a war observer seems like a crazy idea and I was surprised that countries allowed other nations to watch their conflicts and armies.

I hope this doesn't go against the rules but I was curious on peoples views. I've had this discussion with a friend on a few occasions and I am of the view that remembering specific dates of historical events is (comparatively) inconsequential to knowing or being able to discern the significance of those events or people. For example: I think it is far less important to know that Constantinople fell to the Ottomans on 29 May, 1453 than knowing what consequences this had for the history of the region (be it political, cultural, religious, or geo-strategic). Just curious if people would think I'm out to lunch on this. Particularly if there are history teachers / professors on here who could comment.

I just watched 'A Man For All Seasons' today and thought it was a really good movie. I was reading up a bit on the man and have heard people say that he used to torture heretics and I had heard Stephen Fry say that he killed people who dared to own bibles in other languages. I've also heard that this was just propaganda and is all lies so which is true?.

I just went through the exams to get into the Brazilian Foreign Office, and one of the items said, in the context on Imperialism and following decolonization, UK was more successful in negotiating its colonies independence than France. (The right answer was TRUE).

Right away I thought about Algeria's war and compared it do Canada's and Australia's emancipation. But then I thought about India's independence movements and wasn't that sure.

Also, success in this context is a relative and subjective concept. I ended up marking it as TRUE because I remembered it being a direct quote from a book from José Flávio Sombra Saraiva, a Brazilian International Relations professor who is held in great regard by the Foreign Office.

But I would like an historical and non Brazilian-IR-academic perspective.

What do you guys think about this assertion? Is there a accepted historical view on this or historians diverge? Do you think it's an important question at all or it doesn't matter?

Would love your insights!

What were some uses that native americans would use oak trees and acorns for?

I have always wondered this and have gotten different answers from different sources. The term empire is thrown around a lot with various political entities. Why are both the Roman Empire, British Empire, and Holy Roman Empire (to name a few examples) all considered Empires despite their obvious differences.

Was war made any less likely because France was independent of NATO and maintained its own nuclear deterrent? I haven't been able to find much information about how the Russians viewed the French in potential war game scenarios and the like.

Looking at the sky this evening and the question struck me. When the Earth was still believed to be flat, was it also believed that the moon was indeed flat too (like a disc in the sky)? Or did spiritual or scientific beliefs of the time eradicate any questioning of this subject?

Cheers.

we moderns mark the start of the empire and the end of the republic as occurring under Octavian/Augustus, but we know that he eschewed titles and kept the forms of the republic (at least, so I recall). At what point did the Romans realize their current government was no longer constituted the same as it had been? Or are my premises wrong, and they knew all along? After all, the Aeneid is a pretty powerful piece of disguised propaganda for Augustus' strongman rule. Were they aware of the creation of the Principate?

I was reading something about exchange rates and it occurred to me, why does a dollar sign look like $ and why is a pound £, and so on? Thanks!

Although most of the world were involved in these wars, for the countries that weren't involved in the fighting but in the middle of the war (Switzerland, Sweden and Spain for example) how did it affect their daily lifestyles? I can assume rationing wasn't introduced to them but can anyone give me a clear idea on this?

I know modern chess has developed over hundreds of years from hundreds of different games, and the premise of trying to capture the enemy king while protecting your own king makes sense, the idea of the queen being the most powerful piece seems odd in a historical context. Would people not have scoffed at the idea of a woman being the strongest fighter? Then again, this is a game where there are moving castles and battling clergy so maybe I am over thinking this.

It just seems like the weapons they used could prove fatal to ships easily to me, though I don't know much about hull construction at those times.

I have found very little scholarship on this issue, and what I have found states that his religious inclination was unclear. Is this true?

The Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta for example. Nobody's penmanship can be that good.

What were the causes? How did the British influence this revolution? What were the after effects in China?

Thanks!