I mean, if it did. It seems like the Yellow Turban Rebellion at the opening would have some parallels to the Taiping Rebellion. Did the rebels seize on these parallels to cement the legitimacy of their rebellion? Or did the government use the Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a parable about the evils of the rebellion? Or was it just not important to 19th century Chinese politics?

From what I understand, the Son of God's name was allegedly Yeshua in Hebrew (or Aramaic??). Where did the (Latin?) name Jesus derive from, and why wasn't it Joshua or just the original Yeshua instead?

I mean. It seems like Oppenheimer is purposefully excluded from history. Maybe it was just my experience but until I did my own research I really didn’t learn anything about Oppenheimer, which I must say was one hell of a person to research.

In a lot of popular culture, there seems to be an explicit dividing line between "marriage for love" vs "marriage for money" which seems to happen around the start of the 20th century. Is this perception accurate?

Hunter-gatherers generally stayed near water sources and probably knew how to get water from plants. Cities in classical antiquity and in some cases before had drinking fountains everywhere. My question is, how did the people who didn’t have these two sources of water stay hydrated all day? For example: middle ages, early agricultural societies, military and hunting expeditions etc. Did people walk around with bottles all the time like at modern music festivals? Or just drink a lot in the morning and evening?

I am dimly aware that Cortez & his troops were received with great hospitality, including being presented with female servants/aids/translators - was this normal hospitality for the peoples of the Aztec Empire? Did the indigenous peoples see them as "guests" or more like diplomats, emissaries, dangerous foreigners - and did their treatment reflect that?

Recently I learned that the supply of papyurs in Europe declined with the fall of the Roman empire around the 4th century and as a consequence the price of literature increased drastically since parchment was way more expensive to produce. Rolls made out of papyurs were basically pressed and dried fibers of the plant. Why did nobody come up with something similar only with european plants? Is this process really only possible with papyrus or were there other reasons?

I'm getting mixed sources, where the Spartans actually a professional military at any time or where they the best soldiers of the Ancient Greek world? I'm getting a lot of sources saying the Spartans only became the best soldiers because of Thermopylae. I've read sources stating that the Spartan Agoge only became tougher as their name grew and they only became a disciplined unbreakable fighting force after Thermopylae, during the classical and Hellenistic eras, that they only became a warrior state after the stand of the 300. Is this true? Or where the sole Spartans always this disciplined phalanx that could not be wavered or broken, that would march in perfect step, quietly and slowly, due to their discipline. I understand that the Periokoi or the Helots would waver and flee, but what about the Spartans, the Homoioi, would they flee or stand their ground and never waver?

Does anyone know the history of the “Full English Breakfast”? It seems to usually incorporate tomato in some way, and I am wondering at what point the tomato was incorporated into the meal (with the Colombian exchange in mind), and who initially added it to the standard execution of the dish?

I’m reading The Ballad of the White Horse by G.K. Chesterton, which is an epic poem that follows King Alfred the Great and his battles against the Great Heathen Army. I was wondering if there is any poetry from the Norse people about the same events.

I'm especially interested in it's military and battles in the 19th century I'd appreciate any information/ art/songs about it/from it. And I've read the german wiki to get a basic understanding and Napoleon series to look at military history but I would like to know much more. Any information not easily found would be helpful thanks.

As a Brit we don’t really get an in-depth education on U.S. independence besides the basics. U.K. teaching on the subject mainly encompasses the north and that’s about it. My question is what was the South’s reaction to the war? And was it much different from the North’s?

I know proper castles only came to England after 1066 with William the Conqueror and the Normans, but I find it difficult to believe the Anglo-Saxons didn't construct any sort of fortifications. So my question is: did they, and if so, what did these Anglo-Saxon fortresses look like?

I know that the other impeachments in US history (plus the near-impeachment with Nixon) are all considered controversial events and decisions, or at least were at the time in Nixon's case. Johnson's impeachment trial itself was very partisan, with the vast majority of Republicans and no Democrats in both houses voting "yea" to impeach.

Was this the view in the general public? Did the average voter believe that Johnson was criminal and had to be removed, that this was just a baseless political stunt and power-grab, or something in between?

In addition, in the general scholarly historical consensus (if there is one), which was it? Reading the summary on Wikipedia gives me the impression that it was a political stunt (using a veto-proof majority to pass a likely-unconstitutional law to limit the President's power, that you expect him to break, and then impeach him for breaking it); is this an accurate way of looking at it?