When I was first learning about the American Revolution, the rifle was touted as this war-winning weapon that gave us the needed edge over the British in order to win the war. While I now feel that that is an exaggeration, I was curious how much of an effect rifles actually had on the war.

And if I opted to collaborate would this decision be partly driven by a desire to safe myself from potential Nazi ethnic cleansing? Or was it seen as an opportunity to project my own nationalist or racist tendencies (the Ustase or antisemitism in the pale of settlement for example)

At the time of the French and Indian War, the French only had around 80,000 white settlers in North America, 55,000 of which resided in Quebec. On the other hand, the British had populated their colonies with around 1,200,000 white settlers. Was there ever any kind of push to send more French settlers to North America, and if so, why didn't it happen? How did the lack of French settlers affect history, and in what ways could it have been different?

To my knowledge, most of the revolutionary ideas began after the French and Indian War. Was it not true that they did not have representation in parliament, or was it not as big of a problem until many of the new taxes were implemented? Were there any smaller attempts to form an independent nation prior to the Revolutionary War? Finally, I have heard that other British American colonies played a role in helping the United States gain its independence. Is this true? Thank you for any and all information.

It is well known that Italy was not unified until the 1860s/1870s and was a land of many dialects. In a Wikipedia article on the history of the language they state that in 1970 only 20%of Italians spoke fluent "Italian" in their day to day life, even though the Tuscan dialect was declared the official Italian language at the time of unification in 1861. Granted that the three greatest poets of Italy (Dante, Boccaccio, and Petrarch) were Tuscan, how did it come to be that the Tuscan dialect of Italian came to be accepted as the official version of Italian? The movers and shakers of the rebellion in the 1860s were not Tuscan and one might think that they would have supported their own regional dialect to be the official version.

I know the line is "Plato started out writing down what Socrates actually said, but eventually moved on to use Socrates as a mouth piece for his own thoughts." But where exactly is the split between these two and how do you even tell the difference between them?

EDIT: To add depth to what might otherwise be a simple yes-or-no question, I'd like to know how Scots bagpipe materials have changed over time (whether or not they include walrus bacula). I'd also like to know where the claim in question might have originated if it happens to be false.

I've often heard that there wasn't some grand scheme by the British government to conquer the world and have a global empire, and that it came to be by "accident".

If this is the case, how was the British empire formed "accidentally"?

I was thinking recently about some of the different major types of cuisine and techniques, French techniques and sauces, mirepoix, etc, Italian cuisines which are so regional, and I got to wondering to what extent Roman diets and cooking techniques had survived and spread with the empire. What do we know about food in the Roman empire (bread and circuses aside), both for the commoner, and what the privileged would have eaten, and how much of it do we see in modern cuisine?

Just got the CK2 achievement and then immediately saw an infographic about it on my front page, but do we have any evidence Thomas made it to India. I’m aware there are precolonial Christian communities in India, but how old are they? Finally how would a Judaean missionary make it all the way across Persia and into the subcontinent?

In many different places and at various times there have been hordes that relied heavily on mounted archers. Examples being the Huns, mongols, and various other Turkic groups that dominated the steppes on various occasions. These warriors were so effective that many empires collapsed or nearly collapsed when faced with such enemies. Why were empires defeated time and time again by this type of enemy, even when they had faced and defeated similar enemies a few hundred years before?

Obviously school shootings are a hot button issue in regards to gun control, with usually at least one a month. As far as I'm aware we have had the right to own guns for longer than we have had a standardized education system in the US. Was there a time where school shootings didn't happen? Additionally has there been an uptick since Columbine? Thanks!

I'm curious if your average Joe, or even a soldier, would question why I had a body, or if corpses where a common sight in ancient streets of Rome.

If the population of the city of Rome, and other Italian cities(?), shrank after the fall of Western Empire:
Did they move into the surrounding Rural areas? Or did the population in the peninsula diminish as a whole?

Good day,my dear. I am wanting to write a letter to my best friend. He asked me to write it in ,,Fraktur-Schrift" and let me choose the topic. I choose Verdun,but want to do it more like a series of field post of a german soldier. But I am unsure how to word it. Now,I am a native german,but I mean it more like in regards to mood and words that have been used. Would they be hopeful after recieving the order to move towards to Verdun,as if they hoped for an end to the war? Or would they be doubtful and see it more as another battle? My apologies,if the question is worded unclear. Any anwser/help is appriciated.

Was he too stupid to understand the nature of the Nazi threat? Or was he too intimidated by Germany? Or was he actually smart and did this to give Britain breathing space to prepare for the inevitable upcoming war? And lastly, could it have been that he secretly agreed with Hitler's views? I have seen all of these things being said or written by various scholars at different times.

I'm trying to put together a narrative on what happened in the Tibet from about 1950-the late 60s. I'm looking at the three perspectives being the American CIA, the Tibetans themselves, and the Chinese to know their thoughts and motivations during that time frame.

It seems all Kennedy and mob experts have come up empty handed but popular lore persists. What do you think?