In pretty much all of the former Western Roman Empire (except Britain which was a novelty province that was never really Romanized), at least some local Romance language survives to the present day, even if it never became the official language and was replaced as the majority language. For example, Romansh survives as a minority language in parts of Switzerland, the Balkans still have Romanian in Romania (despite Dacia being left to its fate in the 3rd century CE), as well as the Balkan Romance-speaking Vlach communities south of the Danube that somehow survived the complete Slavicization of the area as well as conquest by Hungarians, Ottomans, and others. Why then did North African Romance completely disappear if Romanian (a Romance language in an area the Romans didn’t hold for nearly as long as the Maghreb) and Portuguese and Spanish (two Romance languages that developed in an area under Arabic-speaking rule for quite a long time) were able to survive?

So I'm a writer who likes using history when possible. In this case I want to make one of the characters a former ARVN paratrooper and I want to fully understand his identity. What he believes and what he went through/endured to create a believable person with authentic expiernces. So what do we know of ARVN soldiers perspectives during the Vietnam war and what did they believe and what happened to them after the fall of Saigon.

I've recently been reading up on the birth of feminism in the middle east, and reading about Mustafa Kemal has been extremely interesting. Unlike a lot of his progressive contemporaries, he wasn't educated in Paris and he didn't grow up with a significant amount of European influencers. I've been reading his biography by Andrew Mango and it sort of glazes over this fact. To me, it seems pretty integral to telling the story of this man and the development of Turkey as such a progressive nation in contrast to other middle eastern nations. Is there any sources or theories on this that I could do some more reading into? Thanks so much!

I was wondering why the USA didn't bomb the Japanese army instead of Hiroshima. As they had total air superiority in that time and probably would have been able to.

I was wondering how the borders of indigenous empires/tribes looked like before european influence

I get the impression by a line on a map that the front line is this dense line of soldiers, tanks and guns. But It seems like such a long distance could not be fully covered by a few million men, especially on the eastern front. Just how dense were men packed? Were the lines mostly empty outside of major roadways and railways?

I know there must be a range of factors, but I would love to see what really influenced the leaders who finally made those decisions.

If they did exist, I'd be curious if any unlucky archeologists, local residents, or explorers discovered one such setup or if they inferred their presence based on context clues.

I'm thinking of ships used in expeditions to the New World. How did they unload their cargo and set up colonies without the deep waters of a harbor or the associated mechanical infrastructure? Did ships just beach themselves and then get pushed back out to sea when it was time to leave? How did they lower their cargo on their own?

For instance, in black-and-white photos of cowboys and old politicians, you can see a number different hairstyles, most of which could be characterized as long-ish, and a great variety of beards, mustaches, sideburns, goatees, etc.

However at some point before the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s, short hair and clean-shavenness became such a norm for men that wearing long hair was in and of itself a protest against the Man, the system, etc. Men with long hair were seen as transgressing their gender roles, even effeminate or gay, which was persecuted back then.

As an example, I recall reading in one John Lennon biography of an account where the newly famous Beatles met their long-time idol, Elvis Presly. However, the meeting turned out to be awkward and uncomfortable, and Elvis later characterized the Beatles as something to the effect of "a bunch of guys with f***y haircuts", impuging their masculinity and sexual orientation. This was the mop-top Beatles, who often performed in suit and tie outfits, not the long-haired hippie Beatles of their later period. So even a haircut that would not be considered "long" on a man by today's standard was norm-violating enough for Elvis to deride in slurring language.

When, how, and why did short hair become so important to American males before the cultural/sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s?

From what I understand the medical examiners were left unsure as to her condition and she was beheaded anyway. But if a women did become visibly pregnant what would happen? Would she birth the child in prison? Or be under a sort of house arrest? Or be sent to a public hospital?

Hers is the only account that I can find.

He kinda of seems like a random farmer and Mormon leader.

Why was he of all people selected instead of a politician or CEO for the post?

Like was he respected in the American agricultural community or Republican politics to be selected?

His religious position must have also been controversial during a time of Protestant domination. Not to mention the fact that some would have raised concerns about the fact that he was a religious leader taking a role in government. The Eisenhower Administration seems to have risked scandal and controversy to appoint him to the cabinet.

I mean, I know that this is much less the case in Russia, but in the "West", we tend to think of the USSR as encompassing European Russia and all the sister republics in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. (My own research, although I try to be pluralistic and de-center the narrative to include the periphery, does kind of fall into this trap. I mean, it doesn't get much more metropole than the Moscow Metro.)

Meanwhile, Siberia is often associated with the Gulag, portrayed as desolate, inhospitable and depressing. Vasily Grossman described a voyage into the region as a "nine-thousand-kilometer descent into the deep grave of Siberia." But millions of people live there, and although Siberia does have to worry about population loss, a lot of them seem perfectly happy there. Is there such a thing as a uniquely Siberian form of Soviet identity that led them to move or stay there? I'm particularly interested in the post-WW2 expression of Soviet culture in Siberia, but pre- and during WW2 are all interesting too.

In my AP US Gov class I was taught that the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is indicative of their perceived importance as far as the founding fathers were concerned. As such the first amendment is first as it denotes the ability to protest against the government, the second and third are necessary for the ability to carry out revolution, the 9th is more important than the 10th as people’s rights are more important than states’ rights. I’m just wondering there is historical evidence from the founding fathers to support this claim. Any information would be greatly appreciated!

I've been struggling with a very persnickety question that I just can't find my way to answer. With lock down easing a bit where I live, I figure I'm going to get to the bottom of it. If anyone can help point me in a direction that would be brilliant.

So the question: On 22 December 1589 King James VI visited the castle of Elsinore, he had just been married the month before and was visiting his in-laws before heading back home to Scotland. (As an aside it is a nice story to read about James romantically sailing off to rescue his stranded bride, arguably the only romantic thing he ever did) On the Anne of Denmark Wikipedia page there is a throw away (non-referenced) comment that when James went to this castle he cut his entourage to 50. The implication is that when he travelled from Norway to Denmark the entourage was cut down not just the day he went to the castle, but then again there is no reference. Wikipedia is brilliant for some things but my supervisor would have chopped my hand off if I hadn't referenced an assertion like that. I am looking for a list partial or whole of who was in that entourage while in Denmark.

What I'm really hoping to see is the name George Gordon Earl of Huntly in that list.

Any ideas on potential sources I could chase up that might list the names of this entourage?

The handful of books I could get my hands on during lock down barely mentioned this whole "rescue" attempt event. However, I was focused on James VI, I didn't have anything on Anne or George to refer to. And I didn't have direct access to any primary sources. I had hoped to find some roster of those people on the boat with James from Norway, but I didn't see anything in the Scottish National archives immediately jumping out.

I'm hoping a fresh pair of eyes, might point me towards the obvious source.

So I guess my question is really about the sources I can use to determine the answer to the question more than just the answer itself.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Given that Pompeii was a major port town, would merchants have made it to or near the city before they realized what happened? Or would they have known it was destroyed due to things like tsunami waves, lingering ash, the sound, or from other passing ships? Would returning merchants have a way to try to find their families?

Was it Kings who attacked other countries for slaves to sell? Or Kings selling their own subjects? Or professional slave traders buying debtors or children? Or just bandits? Or what?

I have recently been reading Timothy Snyder’s books “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth”. In it, Snyder argues that states that were destroyed by the either the Germans or the Soviets (or both) saw the highest amount of deaths during WWII amongst their civilian populations, either from anti-Slav or anti-Semitic sentiments. Most western states, he argues, maintained their sovereignty and thus were able to protect their civilians and more vulnerable populations from the worst of Nazi atrocities and anti-semitism.

My question is two fold. One, how did the Germans decide which states remained states (say France or Belgium), and which states were to be dissolved (Poland, or anything encompassed in Generalplan Ost)? And second, how can one make a claim that a state under complete military occupation, such as France again, still be considered sovereign?

How true is this sentence (taken from wikipedia):

It became a 'protectorate' of Poland. As such, it was not part of Poland, but feudal overlord status lay to the Polish king, reflected in the title "Royal Prussia" or the King's Prussia.

It was always my understanding (based on the sources I've read) that Royal Prussia was a Polish province and part of the Kingdom of Poland, but perhaps another interpretation is possible?

Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Pepin the Short, Louis the Stammerer, Charles the Simple. I'm not sure if I would be too fond of going down in history being known for my weight, male-pattern baldness or speech impediment, especially considering the typically more flattering royal subtitles of being 'The Great' or the 'The Fair'.

Am I missing something and these sobriquets had much more flattering meanings back in the day, or does it really speak to a certain contempt that chroniclers had for a lot of Carolingian rulers, and if so why?