During the last years of the Roman Empire, there were invasions from many "barbarian" tribes, such as the Franks, Lombards and Visigoths. In modern day France, Italy and Spain Latin-based languages eventually took hold, but at what point did these languages develop?

I'm particularly interested because of the contrast of these countries to England, which was also invaded by non-Christian Germanic tribes. In England, the language remained Germanic, whereas on the continent the languages of the invaders changed drastically. This is presumably down to the influence of the Catholic Church, but I find this intriguing because the clergy in these countries would have spoken Latin, but probably not the invaders themselves.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ibsen's plays seem to have been regarded as very influential, both by people who agreed with him and those who didn't. For example, Oswald Spengler mentions him as one who will still be quoted a hundred years later, as having a similar influence to Marx or Darwin. And Kipling makes "Tomlinson" mention Ibsen as someone that might win him points for getting into Heaven:

Then Tomlinson looked back and forth, and little good it bore,
For the Darkness stayed at his shoulder-blade and Heaven's Gate before:
"O this I have felt, and this I have guessed, and this I have heard men say,
And this they wrote that another man wrote of a carl in Norroway."

At any rate it's hard to see what other Norwegian Tomlinson could possibly mean; Kipling, of course, does not intend this as a compliment to either Ibsen or Tomlinson.

Ibsen is still studied in Norwegian schools, and I've seen "Enemy of the People" performed in English; but I think he would no longer rank quite as high as Marx or Darwin for influence. So what led Spengler to consider him as such? How did a playwright working in the rather obscure language of a small, poor country become so well-known far outside the borders of Norway?

And, bonus question: Having become so famous, what led to the decline of his influence?

I was wondering how farms or farming villages usually worked in medieval Europe. Did one family work on a farm for the village? Did the whole village work on one farm? Did families work on their own farms? Or is it something else entirely?

So background. I'm writing this story that involves the 2 main characters inheriting a farm from their dead relative. The farm is connected to a village/ town where the characters interact with other people like a baker, blacksmith, seamstress, etc. It's in a fantasy medieval Europe-ish setting with magic and dragons and whatnot.

Any answers are greatly appreciated!

I know that near-all accused were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, and that the stories surrounding the alleged "witches" were largely the result of a mix of hysteria, folklore, and outright lies, but I'm wondering if there are any accounts to suggest anybody living in the area at the time was in fact engaging in some kind of non-Christian mysticism, folk magic, and/or the occult.

Given that magical practices have endured throughout human history, I'm just curious as to whether any were in fact taking place in or around Salem at the time of the witch trials.

(And, just for clarification, I'm not asking about practices that may have been used by puritans to counter the acts of perceived witches; such as the use of witch bottles or similar - I'm specifically asking about practices that would have been condemned by the witch hunters and their supporters at the time, or otherwise would have fallen outside the norm of spiritual practices).

Looking for any and all insights you guys might have. Thanks :)

When do historians think the idea of a Jewish people/religion came into being? Was there actually any evidence of a Kingdom of Israel/Judah and its history outside the Bible?

idk what to right here so have a nice day

Why is Columbus credited as discovering the Americas if Leif Ericsson was actually the first? Did the Vikings just forget about it and leave it alone for centuries?

If so then what was the context for this quote?

Hi! Wanna-be historical fiction writer here. I'm trying to learn about Ancient Assyria. Can someone offer any good sources? Not only history, but daily life stuff? I have found information on Mesopotamia and Sumer, but I am more interested in sources in which the primary focus is Assyria.

I've been reading up on the Six Day War and I'm really curious as to how Israel managed to destroy a big part of the airborne fleets of the different Arab countries. I've read the story of Israel announcing a military holiday in local media and this being the cause for the Arab countries to let their guard down. Is this really what happened? Sounds so surreal.. Thanks

So in modern society there are museums everywhere but was this also the case in ancient societies? Did the Romans, Aztecs or Han Chinese have museums? When did it become common place to have public structures with artifacts that talked about the distant past?

If you are a noble that has an audience with the monarch, how certain can the court be of your identity? Did nobility carry papers that proved who they are and not some random guy with fancy clothing? How about the court of law? How can the prosecution know for certain the identity of the person that stands accused?

I am not a history major. But I decided to take a 300-level history class in my final year of college. When I talked to my prof about the sources that I used for my term paper this week, he said that the author I was reading is a post-modernist. When I ask about what post-modernist and modernist means, I get a sense that it has to do with the notion of historical truth, like whether sentences about history can resemble the actual facts in the world. However, I am still confused about what is at issue. My prof gives me an example of how modernist and post-modernist view truth in general: modernist will say 1+1= 2 and post-modernist can say 1+1 = x. This example does not make sense to me, and I do not see how it applies to modernist and post-modernist in the context of history.

It seems to me that post-modernist cannot be saying that there are no truths in history. Surely, how tall was Hitler, how many wives did Mao had, and so on can have true answers and can be reliably known. So I take it that post-modernists are saying that there are no correct answers to those WHY questions such as 'did X win becasue of Y?' 'Why did Z win?' Is this right? Also, is post-modernist saying there is no true account of history or all accounts of history are true in some sense?

Finally, are there any accessible papers on the subject of modernist and post-modernist approaches in history?

Thank you!

It marvels me that a school of thought like Salafism, which has had many of its ideas streaming much throughout Islamic history, was only established a couple of centuries ago. What was the cause for such a delay?

The Spring and Autumn Period, the Warring States Period(the direct continuation of the first one tmk), the Eighteen Kingdoms Era, the Three Kingdoms Era, and a lot of others in ~2,600 years. Ifrc, the Mandate of Heaven was a major part of this, but even then why would they break up. Was it partly because of its huge size and population? If it was about bad emperors, why couldn't a close relative overthrow them?

I read allegations that Saladin committed atrocities against the Shi'ite communities, particularly after taking down the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt. What is the veracity of such claims, and how did Saladin really treat Shi'ite Muslims?