I was involved in a shooting that greatly exacerbated the tinnitus that I already had from playing bass, and I used to watch a Youtube channel run by an Army Ranger who had a traumatic brain injury from firing a rocket with no hearing protection, so it always kind of blows my mind that soldiers spent decades if not centuries fighting amidst automatic weapons and artillery with ostensibly no hearing protection. Did everyone just kind of deal with the massive hearing loss? I see soldiers whispering commands to each other in movies when they're fighting under stealth conditions, was that actually feasible for soldiers who had been through a lot of combat? I remember at the time my brain tricking me into thinking that the shots weren't nearly as loud as they actually were, but I can imagine my hearing would deteriorate extremely quickly with any sort of prolonged exposure.

From what I read, he achieved considerably less than Zhuge Liang did in his era since he died young.

But was he recognized as such during Toyotomi's rule? If so, how receptive was the people about this notion?

I've heard this through a religious historians YouTube so not the most credible source perhaps that's why I'm asking. If so was the decline of Sufism correlated with colonial practices?

Did the storms move into farmland in neighboring countries or otherwise affect them beyond agricultural trade with the US?

What was going on on the British Isles in between the end of the Anglo Saxon’s and the time that Rome began to settle there? We’re there any settlers, or was it just an empty wilderness?

How did quality of life and economic activity vary? Were there differences in class structure/organisation? How was religion different?

This question perhaps comes from a place of naivety. During the colonial to post revolutionary period I know that tribes while maybe not participating in elections (I’m assuming they didn’t although I’m sure there were exceptions) did have an effect upon the landscape of the time and could be formidable in battle. I’ve also heard that some tribes took sides in the civil war. However, I’ve heard very little of their influence in the 20th century beyond stereotypes and from an international standpoint very little is said about a population that is still larger than some European nations.

Was this entirely down to the military marching west and the continual spread of disease during a period of manifest destiny? Or was it more to do with disenfranchisement (a la the treatment of aboriginal tribes in Australia) and a population remaining steady in comparison to large waves of European immigrants?

Simply put:

1. Why were the slave colonies allowed to be a part of the United States? Surely, a civil war could have been avoided if the northern states simply told the slave-owning colonies to either abolish slavery or go form their own country.

Or how great is the extend of damage and set backs humanity, or the people of the known world, had to suffer after the arson?

During the battle of Stalingrad, the citizens of Nazi Germany were fed propaganda about how well the battle was going and the capture of the city itself. How did the citizens then react to the encirclement of the 6th Army and its subsequent surrender? Or were they not aware of it at all.

If they do, I can't say it's unjustified. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed and tons of Japan's land was destroyed as a result of Truman's decision. I'd imagine FDR would get the same treatment, as he spent a huge amount of the nuclear research budget on developing nukes, plus he did his share of damage to Japan throughout the course of WW2.

Also, is he as popular in China as he seems to be in the West?

I've heard the outer layers of the statue were made of copper, which, I would assume, always turns green when exposed to the outdoors. Wouldn't the creators of the statue have known this? And, if they did, why would they be okay with their beautiful golden statue turning green within a few years?

Many pictures and movies tend to show the Giza Pyramid complex as someplace in the middle of the dessert, seeming to imply that it is a far travel into some remote part of the desert to get there. However many of us have seen the pictures of the pyramids from the other side, where there is a bustling city. Some initial research tells me that there has always been a relatively important city or town in the area of Giza due to its position on the Nile and closeness to Memphis. However I also understand that the Necropolis itself was abandoned at one point or another, with Pharaohs coming back to try and make claims and solidify their rule (see the Dream Steele between the Sphinx's feet).

I guess the long and short of my question is this, was the Giza Necropolis ever really as deserted and remote as some pictures would have us believe?

Were there regional or pan-Union law "firms" (cooperatives?) that recent graduates applied to? How were specializations different compared to "Western" legal systems? Did "Corporate Law" exist?

Did people and firms sue each other as they did elsewhere?

I am, of course, looking at this from my own (western) perspective. But I cannot begin to imagine what a legal career would have looked like in the Soviet Union.

This question is inspired by a joke meme which says that a small island with three different cultures, all each hating the other, united to conquer the world. The island in question is obviously meant to be Britain, the three cultures being the English, Scottish, and Welsh.

Gross (and erroneous) simplification of British cultural diversity aside, to say that they "united to conquer the world" is a bit of a mischaracterization, no? Wales and Scotland were themselves brought under the English crown by imperial conquest.

Can the British Empire really be said to have any kind of Welsh or Scottish character? Or was it, as it seems, a mostly Anglo (-Norman) project? To what extent did Welsh and Scottish aristocrats influence the overall British aristocracy?

So my biggest interest in history right now is how landed gentry came to be in Europe. It's been a question that seems to have very little scholarship done. This may be me just not knowing where to look as at best I'm just a history enthusiast I don't know exactly what journals or where I'd go for this. But I figured here would be a good place to start. So to start here's what I know that the archeological record during the migration period shows there were leaders in tribes but they weren't as strictly divided from the rest of the tribe. They also seemed to be a lot closer in status to say an ordinary person than what we would think of a noble in medieval times.

I also know that by the Carolingian Age what us layman describe as feudalism is already in full force or at least the dominant way to divide society in Europe. Now I know there are a lot misunderstandings in concerns to medieval feudalism. But for the scope of this I would like to know if we have any theories, evidence etc. that would explain how we went from leaders who were close in status with the rest of their tribes to the belief that these leaders are some how better or above the "commoners".

My pet theory which I'm sure is way off base is that this occurred because of increased fighting as more tribes began to settle around. Then at some point one tribe and warlord was able to bring other tribes in the area to heel and thus became king. All major players who helped him in this endeavor became nobles. They were probably rewarded with land from other tribes as well as maybe slaves from that tribe. This was passed down from generation to generation and as it was passed down the "I'm better than the masses" mentality came about. Though I'm sure this is wrong.

I guess what I want is three fold. First if I could get more resources to look this question up that'd be awesome, second would be is there any weight to my pet theory (does it jive with actual expert theories), Third is there any more insight that could be shared on how this came to be?

I know that throughout history, writers, leaders, and other thinkers have shared their thoughts about other languages. The Romans spoke Latin but obviously had their share of thoughts about the Greek language and its ties to Greek culture, some admiring it, others disdaining it, etc.

But what do we know about some of the earliest contacts between speakers of different languages? Do we have any sources from early in recorded history where people from one culture express amazement or bewilderment at the very basic concept that other languages even exist, and that other cultures speak something entirely different than they do? Clearly this must have been an experience that happened countless times over, as communities came into increasingly greater contact with each other. Just curious if anyone can shed any light on this!

The 2 colors I am torn between are Light blue, similar to the color of the sky, and dark grey similar to the German uniform.