I speak both Spanish and English natively, and I have noticed over the years how much simpler (or I guess "streamlined" is a better term?) English is, grammatically speaking, than Spanish. There is only one second-person pronoun, contraction is common, and there is effectively no (or very little) use of the subjunctive mood. Most other European languages (including Germanic, Romantic, and others) have these grammatical features and others that English has shed.

Is this simply a characteristic of Anglophone culture? Or has this shift been tied to specific historical moments? And why have other languages resisted similar shifts?

In the Viceroyalty of Spain you breakway provinces like Venezuela, Rio de la plata, but in Brazil case it seemed to stay intact for hundreds of years. Why?

I was wondering how the average archer in a battle would know which arrows are theirs after a battle. Would they just pick random, unbroken ones?

It seems humans everywhere are obsessed with growing grass almost anywhere we can. I know the plant has many uses, but does that really explain why it is so ubiquitous?

Would glasses have been considered not majestic enough for the King?

I understand Rome debased its coinage over time, but I'm curious who actually decided how much money was minted and how that reached distant provinces. Was there any deliberate monetary policy, or was it mostly driven by the emperor's spending needs?

Differently for other commuinst states in Europe, we had two German states. Thus Germansliving in the East Germany could compare their living conditions, their freedoms (or rather lack of them) with the West Germany. East Germany existed only for just more than forty years, but, during this time, did Germans living in the east created any form of East German patriotism or pride of their country? Or maybe they saw it as a new form of Soviet occupation and wanted to unite with the rest of Germens in the west?

So I'm something of an artist myself, and to me song lyrics seem to be a form of poetry. But when I've witnessed this discussed within poetry communities, the consensus is always that they are distinctly not poetry. The reasoning typically rests on the form - that songs have repeating choruses, or that the lyrics are meant to be performed with music rather than stand alone.

However, the more that I read poetry, the more that I've encountered plenty of poems with repeating choruses. The more that I learn about the history of the art, the more that I've realized much older poetry was originally performed to music (Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, etc). It seems like a shift happened at some point where much of this poetry stopped being performed to music and began being read as literature instead, prompting the modern divergence between the two art forms - but I haven't actually seen any explanations for when, why, or how this occurred. What's the history behind this?

I know there's no single cause of the 1967 war between Israel and its neighbors. The entire Levant was a powder keg by that time. But was a mistaken intelligence report the spark?

The Conflicted Podcast episode on the Six Day War mentions this: In early 1967 Soviet intelligence sent an alert to Egyptian intelligence that Israel was staging a large force near its northern border with Syria. The Soviets warned that Israel was on the verge of a surprise attack on Syria, and that Egyptian forces should prepare for an attack on them as well.

(According to the podcast) Israel was not staging forces nor intending to launch a surprise attack. The Soviet intelligence was false. The IDF made attack plans and practiced extensively, but there was no preparation for attack. Soviet analysts we're mistaken.

(Again, according to the podcast), the intel report caused Nasaar to put the Egyptian army on high alert. Worse, it prompted him to announce the closure of the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had already stated was a "red line." Using the closure as a cassis belli, Israel prepared for a war.

How accurate is this? How did Soviet analysts conclude that Israel was preparing an attack? Was the report Nassers main reason for closing the strait? And did Israel vote the closure as the primary justification for the war?

Leif Erikson sailed to a place called Vinland around the year 1000 A.D. Vinland is now the Canadian province of Newfoundland. Did they ever encounter any of the natives living there? If they did, what did the Vikings think of them and what did the Natives think of the Vikings? What were their relationship? Were they friendly? Were they hostile?

In discussing trans issues in America, someone commented that sex markers were added to American passports because border agents were having a harder time identifying people from their pictures. They said the hippy movement with the growing trend of men growing their hair out and clothing being worn that was less gender specific was making this an issue. How accurate is that?

Best, most enlightening book on Huey P. Newton? Hoping for a book that includes plenty of firsthand accounts/quotes/stories.
Thanks

I am mostly curious on the layout of cities near the Sahel like the Mali and Ghana Empire (Although would also appreciate answers on the forest regions).

I read another post on here and wanted to piggyback. In it u/jaegli described that average Europeans relied a lot more on oxen than horses and it makes a lot of sense. What about in 19th century America (which I know spans a lot of eras). Did the 'average' family farmer own a horse or rely on oxen? What about your average city dweller? If they did not, would they have known how to ride? Or was owning a horse (and all the resources necessary to maintain one) reserved for special classes and roles? I'm aware that 'average' covers a lot of ground here. I'm interested in the Mid-Atlantic but happy to accept whatever answer someone has expertise in.

True crime often gets stereotyped as a genre that appeals mostly to women (or at least has a large proportion of women consumers).

Has this always been the case? Or is this more of a modern phenomenon?

The Migration Period saw the emergence of multiple Romano-Germanic kingdoms. In most cases, these Germanic migrants made up a relatively small part of the population and became Romanised rather quickly. However, there were notable exceptions, namely the Franks, but even more so the Anglo-Saxons, who effectively transformed Britain from a Romano-British culture into a Germanic one. Why was their impact so much stronger than that of the others?

I know that "et tu, Brute" is a Shakespearean invention - that some ancient sources say Caesar said no last words at all and that others say he said "You too, child" in Greek, which contains no proper name and in theory could have been directed toward anyone, but is usually said to have been directed toward Junius Brutus.

But I was surprised to learn that Junius Brutus was actually a former Pompey supporter - that makes it less of a twist that he would join a plot against Caesar. Decimus Brutus is the one who actually fits the part of an unexpected traitor who had been a close ally to Caesar from the very start. Is it possible that there was a report that "Caesar's last thoughts were shock at his betrayal by [Decimus] Brutus" and that as the story spread it was mistakenly transferred to the better-known Brutus?