Why was Elizabeth I so hostile towards her cousin, Mary I and Mary's son James VI?

After Elizabeth I died, James VI claimed the throne without much opposition. Why would Elizabeth I spend a big chunk of her reign opposing Mary I and (especially) James VI, if she knew that James VI would become King after her death?

Was it a simple case of Elizabeth I simply wanting to rule as long as she could and not care about what happens after her death?

Was Elizabeth I scared about what would happens if she gave any sort of recognition or legality to the claims by MaryI and James VI?

The period saw large canals and changes to river systems, was it possible to continue building aqueducts and supplying cities with running water?

During the Napoleonic Wars, what were some of the various ways armies would sabotage enemy artillery pieces?

I know that the colonial powers of Europe met in Berlin to carve up the African continent, but why did they bother claiming Saharan lands? Why did French Sudan, Algeria, Italian Libya, and many other colonies jut out into the Sahara to cover as much land as possible? It seems more of a burden to enforce a claim over inhospitable land that appeared to have had little to no value at that time, so why did they still stake in a claim? Why didn't they just stick to the coastal areas and leave the peoples in the baren interior of the continent alone? The Arabian peninsula was mostly left alone besides the coast since they thought it was just useless desert, but why was the Sahara claimed?

For context the show features Colonel Hogan and his team of varied Allied nationalities sabotaging and spying as well as aiding escape of other POWs from their base of Stalag 13. (modern day equivalent Stalag XIII C near Hammelburg Germany.)

I was taught in high school that in the Ancient times, people lived fairly similarly to today. They had heating, isolation, sanitary ways of getting rid of feces and other waste, they had incredible coliseums where they needed no sound amplification, rather the stadium was built with acoustics in mind, and it was very effective. There were apparently even openly gay (I don’t mean in a derogatory way) relationships. They also ate better food, not to mention their rich religion and mythology, many mythological characters are still present in todays sayings, in my native language, e.g. we say “Tantalus’ suffering”(literal translation). There’s a lot more I can add, literature was highly developed, many of the greatest philosophers lived in those times and they held lectures for younger, aspiring philosophers, they had elections and philosophical debates, their theater was great, they had comedies, tragedies and dramas and so on.

Then in the middle ages, it was incredibly unsanitary, people didn’t take care of their hygiene, streets were very dirty, I get the feeling people were more closed-minded.

What happened, why are the Ancient times spoken so highly of and why do the middle ages seem to be so dark?

Is this a reference to "A Christmas Carol"? This line has always seemed weird to me.

I'm reading about the French Revolution, which was chock full of factions that seem to have gotten out of hand in ways the American Revolution (AR) remarkably did not. So I'm wondering whether the AR had squabbles that nearly derailed or obstructed its progress.

I've also read about Virginians who "remained loyal to England" and refused to remember than names of US Presidents into the 1900s. So there must have been some opposition. But why the opposition and how was it kept in check so successfully whereas the Enlightened urban intelligentsia of the French failed in this regard. To be blunt,, how did the colonial hicks pull off a revolution better than the more erudite, more wealthy nation of France?

I’m reading Michael Grant’s translation of Livy from 1960 at the same time as Mary Beard’s SPQR of 2016. Grant says unequivocally in his intro “a man can know it” of the classical literature - ie any specialist can easily read through all the existing texts. Beard in her conclusion says exactly the opposite - “no one has read it all”.

I’ve tried to find a list online of the extant Greek and Roman literature (rather than inscriptions etc) without luck. Of course there are the Loeb Library and Penguin Classics but to my knowledge these do not aim at being completist.

My question is whether there is a compressive list of known surviving classical literary works?Also can anyone explain the discrepancy between my authors?

I am reading about its history and I really don't understand it, and nobody is asking that question.

Ireland is relatively small island, for most of its history dominated by one culture and language. It doesn't have very mountainous terrain, like for example Greece, which would isolate areas of the country from each other. It even had powerful external enemies for centuries, and thus a good motivation to unite.

And yet it never did. It was always divided between so many petty kings for is small size, and "high kings," had relatively little power. Despite so much bigger and more diverse countries uniting into centralized states.

Are there any attempts to explain why Ireland was so extremely divided? Anything to do with geography of the country that I didn't understand, or some other factors?

Maimonides, Mount Sinai, Zion Medical, Bnai Zion, Montefiore, Beth Israel, just to name a few

I read somewhere that Diocletian considered the Roman Empire to be too vast to be managed by a single Emperor. But how did the early Roman Emperors managed?

And a common reason given was that Roman Emperors need to personally lead troops to deal with enemies in the Rhine, Danube and Persia. Else any local commanders who were too successful would be compelled to rebel. Why couldn't Roman Emperors delegate border defense to local commanders without fear of rebellion? Couldn't they hold their families as hostage or rotation senior commanders to different borders regularly?

About 8-10 years ago I was working on a writing project about Cleopatra. I remember one book talked about someone arranging for her temples/religious rites to keep going. Like basically the author's contention was that she was more closely linked to the priestly elite at Memphis than most people realize. They had the money, desire & connections to kind of keep her memory going. I'm trying to explain this Memphis thing to someone but I'm not doing it very well & I can't find that old notebook. I'd love to give her the name of the actual source. Any suggestions?

Immediately after his assassination, Marat is held to a quasi-saint role, with his bust/statue often times replacing crucifixes in churches. The port of Le Havre de Grace even renamed itself Le Havre de Marat, however after the Thermidorian Reaction, where Maximilien Robespierre is ousted, public opinion quickly flipped. His body was disinterred, people openly mocked him, and on numerous occasions artistic depictions of him were destroyed, yet I can't seem to find any information on why this occurred.

A lot of people are starting to say it is not because it should be asclepius’s staff instead. I know the truth is that there are multiple god’s of healing and that Hermes is one of them, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t wrong because I am debating with other people who don’t agree... If I am wrong I would like to understand why. If I am not, I still would like some details because I just understand vaguely the subject

Edit: Im really disappointed to have to do this, but here it comes. Yeah, this post originates from a discussion I had on an other sub, on which I didn’t take no for an answer simply because I have found a few sources that confirms what I think and absolutely none that says Im wrong. A lot of sources didn’t say that Hermes was a god of healing and healers, but none said that he wasn’t and a lot said that he was. Plus, he is a god of travelers, which includes healers, or at least included at the time. I actually am here because I genuinely am curious about the true answer, and please, don’t let the pettyness of the dude that followed me only to comment that I don’t deserve an answer stop you from giving me a real answer. God, people are disappointing

I ask because I believe this is one of the points made by the 1619 project, and would like to know what your consensus is.

I’m currently exploring the world of Assassins Creed Valhalla which is set during the Viking invasion of Britain (873AD). The map is littered with unkempt Roman ruins that look much more advanced than the wooden huts of the Anglo-Saxons. It made wonder if the Romans were indeed more technologically advanced than the Anglo-Saxons, despite occupying Britain prior.