Specifically when the NKVD took the responsibilities of the Cheka under Stalin, how were they similar and how were they different?

We know Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Chinese history going back millennia, but we don't seem to know much about pre-Columbian Native history. Why not.

I don’t know for sure but I believe he was Polish, not sure if that affect the answer

This has always seemed odd to me that US states (Illinois, Wyoming, Dakota, etc.) were named after the people the government was committing an act of genocide on. What is the reason for that?

When/why did people in the US start to think guns or ‘arms’ were too dangerous and needed to be withheld from people?

I realise this might be a bit of a loaded question but i'm still curious.

Many Latvians and Lithuanians insists that their languages are among the oldest in Europe, and that they are ethnically not related to the surrounding Slavic and Germanic peoples. Indeed, I have read from linguists who seem to agree that the baltic languages branched off from Indo-European at a much different point.

Everything i learned about the great Migration period seemed to focus on population streams that went on farther south as well. So my question is: Was the baltic region affected by the Great Migration at all? If so, do we have a clue where these people came from? Or do we just not know, since they had no written documents?

My wife is from Latvia, so this topic fascinates me

Edit: I realized "Great Migration" is not an unambiguous term in English. I am of course referring to the Migration period starting around 375 AD.

I've read college was almost exclusively for creating clergy, doctors, and lawyers. How true is that statement?

What kind of classes would be taken?

Would enlightment philosophy be part of the curriculum or more of a counter culture like queer theory is today?

What would the legacy of medieval scholasticism be? Would it still be influential in the schools or would it have been in the education of the older teachers?

This question extends to other organizations as well.
Very often I read some sort of apology for this people. It goes mainly like this: "You were not there, so why would you judge them?" or "If they said no, they would be killed as traitors". I my opinion that´s a very bad argument against judging people in Nazi Germany. But besides of that. Is there any truth to that? And I explicitly ask after atrocities.

My first thought is No. You wouldn't be shoot is you said no (or fired into the air). It would be bad for your career. And if you elaborate (Wehrkraftzersetzung), especially in the later years of World War II you could be visited by Gestapo or SD officers.

That's a claim a see/hear often and that is used in order to demonstrate the "local" scale of the middle ages and the lack of travel during this period and that is was caused by the fact that peasant were tied to their land and thus could not move out of it .

A Patriot's History of the United States, page 40:

"By 1700, then, the early English colonies had developed a unique and distinct character far different from the European nations the inhabitants had left. These included: ... a militia system that armed the population so that it could not only resist natives but overthrow or intimidate its own government when it became oppressive (virtually unknown in Europe), [contributing] to an American exceptionalism."

I find it difficult to believe that such an armed population was unknown to Europe. Certainly this wasn't so 'exceptional', was it?

Germany seemed to be a favorite at the beginning of the war in 1914 and in early 1918 the French didn’t believe that they were capable of winning the war anymore. What factors contributed to this sudden change.

Has there ever been a VEEP who wasn’t in Congress? Specifically, has there ever been a VEEP who went from a state legislator position skipping Congress to sit as Vice President?

Hello historians, can someone please help me figure this out?

So, I'm writing a book, it's fiction. In the book we have an object (imaginary ofc) but in the book's world (which is the same as ours) it exists, it's a ring that existed in the times of the ancient Greeks and through time it went through Italy and then ended up in England, buried inside a church. I was wondering if anyone has traced an object through history, how did you do it? Since the characters are trying to trace it and trying to figure out how it ended up in England, I was wondering if anyone has done a similar type of research so I can do the exact thing but in reverse, should I just go about and search books of the different time periods and prominent people of the eras and mention them some way or another, I'm trying to make it real and believable.

Would love to hear any opinion. Thank you for reading this!

It seems to me that if a group of soldiers on horseback charged deep into the ranks of enemy foot soldiers, the absolute best case scenario is that they cut down a handful of infantrymen before having their horses disabled and being left completely surrounded. My first thought is that this probably NEVER happened in actual medieval warfare, but I wonder why it's so commonly used in film and television. Is there any evidence of this being an effective strategy, or even one that was ever used? or is it just totally a dramatic scene used for effect?

If there’s no evidence that anything like the Biblical narrative unfolded at the site, why do we still use that name if not archaeological tradition? It almost seems like using it overshadows the history the site actually does have.

Did britain have a template they would follow every time they conquered a new region to establish new governments and a system of law and enforcement?

Edit: I mean Greek as a second language.