Personally, I'm more into early modern Spain (for which I'd recommend the books by JH Elliott or Geoffrey Parker), but as far as medieval Spain goes, the picks from my personal library are:

• LP Harvey, "Islamic Spain,1250 to 1500"
• Townsend Miller, "Henry IV of Castille"

You are correct, but you said 'would we still be in the bronze age', that implies society would've halted at bronze. In any case, the point remains: different alloys serve different purposes. So, assume the easier availability of bronze was a thing, at some point society would reach a point where the ends were no longer met by it. The reasons could be various, but it is hard to imagine human ingenuity would just stop innovating. Consider martial purposes, steel is far better than bronze, assume iron was not relied on that much, the chances of discovering steel are quite likely & and subsequently, so would the urge be to apply it. Hence, my point is that if more availability was around it would plausibly allow the usage of bronze to stick around longer, that is until a superior alloy (like steel) was discovered. No warrior in his right mind is going to choose bronze over steel.

Probably not, why makes you think that? Bronze is indeed better than iron, but consider that the differences relate to usage/application. You can't, say, build skyscrapers with bronze, rather you'd need steel alloys for that. Similarly, there is a reason weapons are steel and statues are bronze. So sooner or later you'll hit a bottleneck in terms of usage, making it very unlikely we'd stick around with bronze forever.

You're suggesting 12 months is a universal standard, when in reality, that only came about later. You can not disregard that which doesn't exist. It is Caesar who reformed the system to be more structured.

Not that we have any particular information about. Also, consider the difference in the scope/possibilities of (mass) communication. The Cold War, in its global context in an age of mass information, had implications we simply don't see replicated in the past.

Because they couldn't agree on the terms.

Pivotal was the regime change at the British courts, which saw the Whigs ousted by the Tories & the death of the Austrian Archduke, which suddenly saw the prospect arise of seeing the two Habsburg branches reunited - to which the British and Dutch were "nope".

By your logic Rome after 284CE or 312CE isn't Rome anymore either...

Ever since Joseon began to break up under the tension of foreign pressure, and ultimately, was absorbed into the Japanese empire, the Koreans had been divided over how to reshape a future Korea. The advent of marxist revolutionary ideologies certainly was not helping to reconcile different ideals.

Because those lines had fall back lines. So, in a sense, it limited gains made. They were however overall on the defensive during this period.

One of the big changes the 19th century brought in the wake of the French Revolution, was that we began to register everything. The concept of a census and people registers is an old one, but in modern history it became a standard operating measures of modern states. Everything is registered in modern states, when (and where) you are born, when (and where) you die, when (and who) you marry & everything in between and so much more.

So basically, you'd have an administrative footprint that allows you to compare.

Not really, the question can be answered/considered irregardless of it. But ok.

Besides the point, but yes, you can make that observation & it is a fair one to make. Personally, I frame it as multiple separate wars ultimately coaslesced into one, broader, all-encompassing conflict.

So in 1943, Germany had about 240 uboats, of which 118 were operational at sea, which was apparently their peak number during the war. How do you suggest they monitor the entire northern Atlantic like that, though? They were not reigning supreme in that sense.

Japan invaded China years before WW II, in 1937 Your premise in that sense is not correct. If you mean, prior to WW II, would depend on if & how China got out of its civil war & how the USSR/USA took up position.

As far as introductory works go on Greek mythology, but not in the academic sense, I'd say give Stephen Fry's works a go: Heroes and Mythos.

There are for example, the Herculaneum Papyri (buried by the eruption of the Vesuvius, but which xray technology now allows us to decipher). Egypt, too, has delivered many documents preserved by the arid conditions, and of course, we have a score of inscriptions on hard surfaces like stone.

As to the veracity, consider this article , it does a nice job explaining.

Technically, the Battle of the 300 Champions fits your bill.

r/AskHistory exists too.

No, also consider that for most of its existence, it was never even a non-stop barrier, but rather a collection of. The emblematic wall you know today was the product of the Ming dynasty, by which point the era of migrations was at its end.

Who said he turned his back on his beliefs? On the contrary, he was going to force his beliefs on everyone, you know, for their own good. The road to hell and good intentions, you know.

Tell me which other poster boy unleashed a world war and decided that genocide was best done in an industrialized fashion? Yes, we have many examples of equally depraved behaviour and wild cruelty by dictators, but few of those unleashed a war that would engulf the world.

Not really, bath houses were still quite popular in the medieval era, including with ahum, company. It's onlyby the 16th century that the pendulum began to swing in the other direction.

Toby Wilkinson, "Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt"

Not necessarily, it would depend on the type of warfare waged. Typically, medieval warfare tended to fall apart into two categories: the siege or the chévauchée. The former obviously targeted specific spots, often cities or key fortifications. But these were costly and hit or miss efforts.

Quite often, warfare would be about plunder & rapine. This was what we call the chévauchée, basically a large-scale raid seeking as much booty as possible. This type of warfare accomplished two goals, the first already mentioned, namely loot. The second was nevertheless also important, namely displaying the ineptitude of the defendant. This is why the English embarked on the famous chévauchées of the HYW: it showed that the Valois were weak & that the blatant failure to defend their lands from the ravages of the English, was an admittance that god favoured one side over the other, that legitimacy was on the side of the Plantagenets. This was a characteristic of medieval conflict resolution, endemically featuring at the lowest feudal echelons, but taken to the level of states and all the horrors of war that ensued.

So, on these types of campaigns, you can be sure they scoured the land for those villages all the same.

There are only a finite amount of routes any large group of men can take. Mountains? They'll take the pass. Rivers? They'd take the crossings. Swamps? They'd go around. Forests? They'd go around (if possible) or take the few roads available. And so on. Then, it becomes a case of scouting those limited options.