In summary the title, I want to learn more about where the Icelandic language started to become its own language separate from the Danish. From what I’ve done of my own online research is that it’s more close to old Norse than other Scandinavian languages with a few modernized ways of pronouncing and spelling certain words.

I’m wondering if anyone here knows a good timeline or great reading I can look into to learn more, if not at least find a good foothold to look into more.

He defeated one of the largest militaries in the world and was president during the fall of the ussr. Wouldn’t these things make him very popular among the people?

Im really only knowledgeable on small bits and really want to hone my knowledge on this subject.

If I remember correctly, all three people arrived roughly the same time. And the notion of a united England, at least in part, developed out of land that had been conquered by Saxons (Wessex). So why was the name England chosen from all of the present ethnicities of early medieval Britain?

I've what I find is an inconsistent image of Gauls literacy before roman conquest. On the one hand, my mental image is that they didn't leave much if any written traces. On the other hand, they formed a complex society and were already in tight contact and had lot of commercial exchange with Romans and Greeks, who for sure were literate and thus they were exposed to writing.

What are my misconceptions? If applicable, what are the major explanations for the fact that the practice of writing didn't percolate more in the Gauls culture?

Sorry for bad Englisch: My question is since when were rulers counted? I'm thinking about e.g. Philipp II. of Macedonia, was he known to his subjects as "the second"? Or was it later, maybe the Middle Ages? When did this practice start?

Afaik the Sumerians are the older civilisations in history, but I’ve been wondering if there are proof of some civilisations older of them.

If so, would this not have a detrimental effect on their ability to direct the army in battle?

You know the one.

I only just found out that it is called a bycocket, that it was popular between the 13th and 16th Century, and it was indeed often decorate with feathers. And it seems that any version of Robin Hood that isn't trying to be super serious gives him the hat.

Which is a bit weird, given that it is historically accurate...

I may have just answered my own question here, but it can't have been the only hat worn during Robin's supposed era. When and why did it become so synonymous with the character?

On the daily express as newspaper 1934 dated September 10th there is a political cartoon about the hyde park rally (i do have a picture of this source if anyone wants to see it) in it P.c Bull holds up two figures, one being Moseley one being representative of a rival meeting at hyde rally. I was wondering if anyone knows about a P.c Bull who was at the meeting as i cannot find anything on him and if this is the case and due to the date 1934 appearing on his collar it is more likely that he is there as a figure to represent feelings towards the BUF and rival parties at the time.

Being a Daily Express cartoon from the time it could be either way, but i would appreciate any imput on this.

I'm wondering if this is tracked anywhere, has this ever happened?

1. Country A defines a set of desired outcomes for new economic sanctions against Country B.
2. Country A imposes sanctions on Country B.
3. The desired outcomes defined in Step 1 are the actual results of the economic sanctions against Country B.

In the movie "The Imitation Game," it showed Alan Turing and the Bletchley Park Hut 8 team cracking what is probably the first enigma message cracked by the British: heading commands for the German torpedo boat KMS Jaguar.

I'd just like to see if any other historical texts or entries either verify or go against this story. As far as I have researched, no historian has recorded the first Enigma code cracked by the British. In addition, the Poles were the first to crack Enigma before the British, correct? What was their first message that time? Similar to my research with the British codebreaking scene, no historian has documented the first code broken by the Poles.

Of course, with them only declassifying the Enigma-cracking strategies after the war (and the Poles declassifying their strategy before the Battle of Britain), it might be hard to deduce what the first message could've been, but I would still like to know if it has been documented anywhere, or will we never know.

When and where, did hoplites in the traditional sense, last take the field for battle? For contex, the hoplite is the Greek heavy infantry man fighting in the phalanx with aspis, thrusting spear, shortsword, and wearing some kind of body armor and helmet. I am awear of a few sources which use the word, but by the contex aren't talking about hoplites. And the "Hoplite" need not be Greek, per say, but a people influenced by them.

• There are plenty of historical examples of the U.S. overthrowing and replacing left-leaning governments with right-leaning ones, and I am wondering if there are any significant examples of the U.S. choosing to work with left-leaning governments instead of overthrowing them.
• If there are, why did the U.S. choose to work with them instead of overthrowing them?

I've seen a lot of hate towards The Woman King. A lot of it is said because it's historically inaccurate.

I've seen it and I've read the historical inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Indeed there are inaccuracies (and I know the main plot is fictional). But is this any worse than many other popular "history" movies? Movies like The Patriot, Gladiator, Braveheart, 300, The Last Samurai, Amadeus, Apocalypto, etc.

I know those movies get criticisms and comments on inaccuracies. But they don't seem to get the hate that this movie is getting. And they are still regarded as great movies. I'm just trying to understand what the difference is here.