Hi, I've been doing some research for a piece of fiction I am writing and I need to find a band of Indian pirates in the 17th - 18th centuries. I read the wiki page for Kanhoji Angre but I like to know about his sons and grandchildren who carried on his legacy. However upon doing further research I hit a dead end with a load of books that are out of print and some event called the "Siege of Gheria".

Please help me as I am a sucker for historical accuracy and I don't want to make up some privateers when this interesting and unheard of piece history exists.

I understand they were passed from father to son but for how long would they have been used for? 50 years? 100 years? More?

Could a sword have seen service at the Battle of Hastings and the Battle of Jaffa? In the battles that united the Mongols and been at the sack of Baghdad? Caesars Invasions and the Battle of Watling Street?

Recently I have been doing some Renaissance studies, and this question has gone unresolved. I understand it was a rediscovery or "rebirth" of classic Greek and Roman texts, but I don't quiet understand why this rebirth occurred. Were the Greek and Roman cultures truly "forgotten" in the period before the Renaissance, or were they just re-popularized during the era?

I've generally understood that fairer skin is a general, cross-cultural (although certainly not universal) mark of beauty. I seem to remember hearing things along these lines from ancient Greece and India and China and so on. Today someone said that the lighter-skin-is-more-desirable thing was solely a result of European colonialism. Is that true? What's the deal, historically speaking?

EDIT - Let me make clear I'm not using this to justify any sort of racism. I don't personally think that one skin tone is more beautiful than another. It's just the argument we were having.

To what extent did the experience of veteran units in WWII contribute to their performance in the Korean War?

It seems like they have made an effort to depict something other than usual hollywood 1v1 fighting but is it accurate for the times with them pushing as a group and occasionally creating gaps for people behind to stab/shoot?

Sorry I know this is very subjective, but I'll try to explain. I remember reading that Bohemia was one of the wealthiest areas of Europe before WWII, and even though nowadays we don't exactly think of the Czech Republic as depressed, it still doesn't cross most of our minds as having been on the same level as Southeast England or the Netherlands, for example. This got me wondering if any areas that are now not known for their wealth were ever seen as world leading, sort of how Al-Andalus was the center of civilization for some time during the Medieval period (at least people say this anyway).

In authoritarian societies like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, how was foreign language education handled? I would think that in societies such as these which tried to heavily restrict the flow of outside information, ensuring a low amount of knowledge of foreign languages would be beneficial. At the same time, knowing foreign languages is obviously essential for being economically competitive. How did they balance these needs?

Was it possible to learn foreign languages as we do today in democratic societies, in public school? Or was it more tightly controlled? Would you draw suspicion onto yourself in, for example, 1950s Russia if you made an effort to learn a non-Cominform language like English or French if you didn't have a good enough reason?

I'm curious about forestry practices in the ancient world, specifically during the Roman Empire. I have worked as a planter in British Columbia for several seasons, and I'm curious as to how the industry worked in the past .

So, some questions: Was forestry a commercial operation? Was it administrated by the government and specific tasks contracted to private entities? Were there tree farms or were natural growths culled periodically? Were culled forests left to regenerate naturally or were they replanted by hand? How were these practices affected by the "decline" of the empire?

I realize this is a lot of questions, any and all answers are appreciated, or just a link to a book/webpage/whatever.

How has the American diet changed since 1900's? Are we eating more/less processed food? More/less fruit and vegetables? More/less protein?

People today can paint and draw photorealistic images. Why couldn't people in the past do the same? Why didn't artists in the past try to capture the world as it actually appeared? Did some people do that? If so, why didn't anyone say, "Hey, that looks amazing. Let's do more of that." Bonus question: Why is Greek sculpture nearly flawless in its replication of the human form, but Greek art so simplistic and childlike? It seems like the farther back in time you go, the crappier art gets in its depiction of an accurate image of how the world appears to the eye. Bonus question 2: Why are paintings like The Mona Lisa considered amazing when so much modern art is clearly superior (yes, subjective I know, but that's how I feel)? Is it because it stood out in its day? If so, why did it stand out?

I admit, the question may be flawed, since perhaps it is more that Europe is focused on defined titles tied to set bordered lands rather than tied to families and dynasties. I'll try to explain.

France is a kingdom with a roughly agreed upon border encompassing generally the French people. It's king is the King of France. While we recognize the many dynasties that have ruled France we don't call France from the 16th to 18th century the Bourbon Empire, yet we call Egypt in the 12th century as the Ayyubid Empire. Why not Egypt? Even when Napoleon conquered and expanded lands we still referred to it as France, not the Bonaparte Empire. Perhaps half of Europe could be lumped under Capetian or Hapsburg empires.

Asking about the classical Pax Romana period. Oh and only their first term, as some legionaries served a second term as evocati.

Thanks!

Untill recently my understanding of the battle of Midway was the critical moment came when Nagumo ordered the planes that were outfitted for Anti-Ship attack to reconfigure in order to launch a second attack on Midway.

However I read recently, that Yamamoto had given detailed instructions that half of the planes on board were to be kept prepared to deal with the expected US carriers.

So why did Nagumo feel able to order that the reserve planes be used to attack Midway, especially in an organization like the IJN?