The Norse settled and even fought against natives. So why did the knowledge about North America's existence was forgotten and it took until 1492 to reach there more effectively?

Modern science fiction has had some very clear trends and phases in regards to how it envisions the future. Technological progress, for the most part, leading to various issues and results.

That made me wonder what people in the past imagined the future would be like?

When the Convention of Kanagawa was sealed in 1854, the Japanese saw it as a sign of weakness in their leadership, and of disrespect and belittlement towards their culture and country by the western powers involved (As evident by the Japanese depictions of the westerners involved in the event after the fact). Commodore Perry's gunboat diplomacy was one of the main causes for the Meiji Restoration and subsequent nationalism in the Meiji Period, with people such as Shimazu Nariakira taking the stance that Japan had to modernize and become as powerful as the western powers if it was to avoid colonialism. However, how much of this thought survived until the Showa Period? Did the Japanese leading to and during World War 2 still feel strongly about the Unequal Treaties of the 19th century? Or did they completely disregard Commodore Perry's expedition and the 19th century treaties in light of their perceived unfairness in the Treaty of Versailles?

Six out of the bottom eleven countries (Chad, Mali, the CAR, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Niger) on the Human Development Index are former French colonies. The CAR is a failed state with an absurd amount of armed groups and rampant sectarian violence, Niger suffers from a lack of healthcare, extremely poor education, and much of the population seems to be trapped in subsidence farming. I remember hearing Mali had the president and PM arrested after a coup, and Chad has extremely poor human rights and is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. In contrast, the British former colonies in Africa (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, among others) still have some issues but for the most part are functional states with governmental control and large economies.

Does this owe more to geography (proximity to the Sahara, poor water sources), French colonialism (I recall reading that CAR's crippling colonialism, stripping of resources, and slavery was inspired by Leopold's Congo), or thoughtless borders during the Berlin Conference?

It seems that many ancient philosophers made this claim or a related one, but was Socrates the first? Did any of the pre-Socratics make any similar claims? Was this a common or novel idea at the time Socrates said it?

Soldiers come from war suffering from PTSD. Some of them struggle for the rest of their lives knowing they've done some violent things. It occurred to me that Truman is responsible for using a terrible weapon that caused a lot of death, pain and misery. As an individual did he ever struggle with things like guilt or anger after seeing the weapon used?

This was an anecdote in some business book I'm currently reading (A World without Email, Cal Newport) and it's not crucial to the point the author is making, but it sounds fascinating nonetheless.

He quotes some historian from the 60s or so to argue the following:

• When the stirrup was introduced, it was initially seen as mildly useful in making riding a bit easier
• But then people figured out that bracing yourself in the stirrup while carrying a lance made the lance blow so much more powerful!
• That lead to armored knights being the defining power on the battle field.
• So if you, as a state, wanted to survive, you better got yourself a bunch of armored knights!
• Supplying and sustaining those sorts of troops is super expensive and required "capital", which back then, really, meant land. So you confiscated a bunch of land from the church, gave it to your loyal vassals to use and maintain armored knights and that's that.

Is this school of technological determinism still relevant, or is this waaaaay off, similar to Jared Diamond's geographical determinism?

Hello! I am currently working on a novel that involves a female doctor in Victorian era England. I've been able to research and find that the University of London began giving women degrees in the year 1878. However, I am struggling to find information on precisely when post-graduate education of physicians was instituted or how long it lasted. The book is set in about 1885-1886 and the character is already a practicing physician (though if this is not historically possible, my timeline can be moved).

TLDR: When was post-graduate medical school instituted in England? How long was a student expected to be in university for general education? How long was a student expected to study in medical school and in their apprenticeship?

I'll admit almost complete ignorance on the subject. I have no in depth knowledge on the topic, i only have a rough roadmap of the history of the area. The question somewhat excludes the reality that they both did originate from the same ancestors roughly 14,000 years ago. That's too obvious an answer for me. I'm more interested in the ties the cultures may have had predating colonization, but not so far back that it leads to the original migration of tribes from North America

I just started the audiobook on this and the introduction goes over the immense amount of criticism she received regarding this book. I'm curious of how the criticism of this work evolved over time and what the modern consensus is, specifically amongst American and Israeli Jews.

Is there anything a lamen could read about the Assyria empire.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest humanity ever got to destroying ourselves and the world intentionally. While we know the contributing factors now, how would the average citizen of the nations involved be responding to the event as it happened? What did reporting on it look like, and how did it vary between each country? Were people packing their things and desperately fleeing to fallout shelters, shuttering themselves in their homes with the news on just holding their breath, or just going about their daily lives? How much information was each government letting through to their citizens? The pipeline for information in 1962 was not nearly as streamlined as it is now, so are there any recorded accounts from people who just completely missed this and freaked out when they heard?

I know that's a lot of questions, thank you all in advance!

For example, was there a point where it was illegal to own a bow? Type of bow? How many arrows you could carry in a quiver, or types of arrows you could own?

The railway system was instrumental in the expansion of settlements throughout the whole of the US, so why has it fallen by the wayside?

Edit: just to clarify, I meant specifically their passenger rail system. Should have been more specific.

My kids are driving me nuts with the whole "Hamilton" thing so I decided to buy the book and see the real deal. What's the general consensus? I'm impressed. Well written, thought out and researched (there's like 60 pages of footnotes). I'm starting to understand all the issues of building a country from scratch.

Apparently my post doesn't have enough "meat", so I'll fill it out. Is the biography "Alexander Hamilton" realistic? or is it mostly fiction. I'm leaning towards the former. I appreciate the depth and the breadth of the book. Additionally, I like all the NY references.

Even as late as the Battle of Berlin, Hitler clung to power as leader of what was left of Germany, and after he died there was something of a power struggle to succeed him.

However, did Hitler ever lay out his plans for how his successor should be decided? Were they to be nominated by him, chosen by the party, elected even?