I know the Byzantines considered themselves to be the Roman Empire, but did Western Europe share the same sentiment?

Were they mostly proud, ashamed, or indifferent?

I don't know what kind of understanding, if any, the Romans had on volcanoes at the time; so assuming there was none, how did they react to such sudden destruction of their cities?

I have read that the collapse happened within the span of a human lifetime. If so, suppose I were a common citizen of a Bronze Age civilization (whichever left more information to give an answer). What would I experience throughout the collapse?

I always see conservatives deny the party switch and say that democrats are still the party of slavery. Most reasonable evidence that I have looked into would say that they are wrong. When I try to discuss they always say that the geography of the parties switched and not the beliefs. Then they will say something about people moving north or south post civil war. I have yet to find any significant information that would reinforce their beliefs. Is there a possibility that they are right?

The other day I had a look at a document from 1438 and it stated that the archbishop of Mainz in Germany ruled over a feud case between two counts which have been send to him from the manorial court in Nuremberg.

Why would they be send to a religious court instead of the case being ruled at a manorial court?

Sometimes, it's obvious, with dogwhistles like 'states rights', 'northern aggression', and the usage of the word 'negro' by white authors in books written past the year 1950. Other times, I've really enjoyed a book like Sherman's March by Burke Davis, but felt kind of icky after reading it without being sure why - an extreme emphasis on the civilian southerners' response to the March, Twain-esque slave dialogue (I believe he drops a 'massa' before page 100), and the author's other books being biographies on Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jeb Stuart all combine to make a slightly unsavory picture, and make me second-guess parts of the book.

Are there clear alarm-bells to suggest that a work may not be objective, akin to the usage of the term Anglo-Saxon? How should a non-historian approach Civil War media?

The Volcano is close to both city center's. How was one city buried and lost for 700 years while the other was left unscathed? I've tried to answer this question on my own but Google is no help.

Me and my friend had a conversation about Russia and noticed there seems to be a weird connection between Italy and Soviet Union. This started with us listening to old Italian disco, some of which seems to have a lyrics about the Soviets.

Then I started to read Doctor Zhivago and learned that it was first published by an Italian company and in Italian since it would have been cencored in the Soviet Union.

Later, my friend told me about his exprience as an exchange student in St. Petersburg. He told me a signifigant part of his fellow exchange students were Italian.

This all got me thinking. Is this all just coincidence or is there an historian reason for all this? Is there a weird connection between Italy and Soviet Union / Russia and if there is, why and how did it came about?

As I understand dragooned are mounted infantry, they ride into battle and then fight on foot; but, I don't really understand the point of these types of soldiers when compared to traditional light cavalry. If their jobs were to go ahead of a marching column of troops and harass the enemy that is something that seems like it would be better to do in the manner of traditional cavalry, shooting from horseback. If the only reason to have them mounted is to quickly get troops to the front line, it seems like having 10 or 12 horse teams pull wagons each with a company of infantrymen as opposed to having one man on each horse's back would be much more effective; that would be slower than a man just riding a horse, but much faster than marching.

The Philippines was occupied by the Spanish Empire from 1565 to 1898. For an occupation that long it really puzzles me why we aren't a Spanish-speaking country. In our history classes during elementary and high school we were told that Spanish was only taught exclusively to the rich. But I don't really buy that since almost all of their former colonies in the Americas speak Spanish. So what's with our case?

Hi!

I'm about to write a book and was wondering, how was it to live in the landscape Dalarna in sweden during 1920? Say that you were a pretty wealthy family, with enough to normally go around in ways of food, shelter and money. How did the Spanish flu effect that part of the country and how bad did it spread around there. Also, how well would such a family survive. :)

Grateful for any answers and thanks for your time.

And did these street fights contribute to the decision to turn Fire Brigades into public organization?

Side note: Anyone know of an online English to Hohokam dictionary?

Abrahamic religions are the most prevalent faith in most countries, usually due to conquest by Christians or Muslims. In South, East, and continental South-East Asia, however, Christianity and Islam have a limited reach. What makes South Korea the exception to this trend? The Wikipedia page on Christianity in South Korea rather leans in a certain direction, and it's difficult to find a scholarly explanation online.

I know there's not much left on ancient Slavs, but is there any info on what kind of names they had?

I've been wondering about this for a long time but I don't even know where to start. I'm scared there's nothing left, but people have found obscure information before.

I am embarrassed to ask this question because my parents are Cambodian refugees and I have no idea why the genocide happen. My parents do not like to talk about the war (my grandpas/aunts/uncles were executed and my older sister died as a baby from starvation). Any time I look up to read on it, I become super overwhelmed because it seems complex. Why do people blame the US for the Khmer Rouge genocide and is the US truly to blame?

I'm just reading Primo Levi's 'If This is a Man' for my degree and there is a passage which reads as such:

" At Auschwitz, in 1944, of the old Jewish prisoners (we will not speak of the others here, as their condition was different), "kleine Nummer" low numbers less than 150,000, only a few hundred had survived; not one was an ordinary Haftling, vegetating in the ordinary Kommandos, and subsisting on the normal ration. There remained only the doctors, tailors, shoemakers, musicians, cooks, young attractive homosexuals, friends or compat- riots of some authority in the camp; or they were particularly pitiless, vigorous and inhuman individuals, installed (following an investiture by the SS command, which showed itself in such choices to possess satanic knowledge of human beings) in the posts of Kapos, Blockaltester, etc.; [...]"

​

In his account of being in Auschwitz, he speaks of the tattoo numbers as being representative of who came in at what time and therefore they become a sort of demarcation between the inmates themselves of who is more or less aware of the camp and what one has to do day-to-day to survive the longest (stealing, selling items in the 'market', keeping hold of your belongings etc). In this part he talks of who has remained, over a period of years, of the lower number inmates who arrived earlier than the rest, and mentions 'young attractive homosexuals' in this list. I can understand the doctors, cooks, tailors etc being kept alive for longer, but does anybody have an explanation as to why these 'young attractive homosexuals' were still around at this time? As far as I am aware the Nazis made concerted efforts to round up and exterminate homosexuals so what is the reasoning here behind the SS keeping them purposefully alive? He mentions earlier in the text that there is a brothel house in the camp where Polish women were forced into prostitution so I'm just wondering who these gay men were and why he mention them specifically - especially their attractiveness? Was there some secretive gay SS officers or something who wanted to keep them around for personal sexual reasons??, I just can't figure this out...