How does the bronze age collapse compare to the crisis of the late middle ages?

Another thing is no one thinks about Versailles logically, nor do the education systems ever encourage this. Compare it to Saint Germain, Trianon, Serves, Brest Litovsk, all of which are never taught in Western history classes but were arguably harsher than Versailles. Your teacher will never reveal to you that Russia LOST World War I. It's all "Germany lost the war, and they got blamed for everything." Versailles was actually quite lenient for its time. What made Versailles so difficult for the Germans to swallow is that it deprived them of their pride.

So do you believe that the issue was entirely a moral one for the British? Or was it just for the international PR?

Did the British gain anything from pressuring others into abolition?

Who was responsible for popularising the usage of Hangul?

How far would you agree that Henry VIII's marriages are over-discussed in comparison to other aspects of his reign?

Did the Romans notice linguistic similarities between Latin and the Celtic and Germanic languages in the same way the Portuguese did when they reached India?

I am fully aware that medieval Christians would've considered people from classical antiquity, such as Xerxes or Augustus, to have been historical as we do today. Are you saying that they would've thought of Iliad characters the same way? Did they consider the Trojan war to be a historical event only with theological/supernatural embellishments? Would they not have thought of it as a fringe religious text?

During the Middle Ages, many in Europe considered the Iliad to be a historical account (just as the ancient Greeks and Romans did.) The epic cycle is a pagan tradition, whereas most of Europe was Christianised throughout the middle ages. Why would Christian Europe hold this view of the pagan Iliad and Odyssey?

Which one was that?

Why was the Iliad considered to be historical in medieval times despite everyone being Christian (aka not pagan) back then?

My predicament is that during the first taifa period, Alfonso VI conquered Toledo and was quite close to unifying Spain under a tolerant and harmonious rule. But then came in the radical Almoravid and even more radical Almohad caliphates who practiced forced conversions and fed into the "us vs them" concept stereotypical of the reconquista. It could've been a unified, tolerant kingdom but instead turned out as the one religion "winning" over another one. How far do you agree with this?

Was the Almohad caliphate to blame for the Spanish inquisition?

So when then did the idea of reunification fall out of fashion?

When people talk about the population of Rome declining, they're usually talking about after the Western empire fell; but in fact, it appears to have been on the dole for virtually since the empire began with Augustus. Why is this?

How far do you agree that most British people hold a very Anglocentric view of the world wars?

Is there a term used to refer to the period of the French Revolution and Napoleon as a whole?

How did the colonies react to the English Civil War?

What research methods did Herodotus use?

What did the nine years war have to do with the Salem witch trials?

Does anyone know any good YouTube videos that describe the nine years war? Literally seems like no one's covered it!

I guess socio-political changes through time is practically all history is in the educational sense rather than historical events as a whole.

You may have heard the statement that everything Henry VIII did and how he asserted his authority on those around him has come to be viewed as the epitome of the word "king." Dictator-like kings, as exemplified in the examples provided, is more or less what I mean. I remember looking at John, Henry VIII and the Civil War in history class, but other than that, I mean I can't help but feel that the curriculum is selectivist in what they prefer to teach. Not much about the Anglo-Saxon period or even that the Plantagenets also held large sways of France. But anyway, back to my question, do you understand it better now?

By definition, "ancient" means everything before the Middle Ages, commonly understood as everything before 500 CE. So that includes ancient Egypt, Sumer, the Hittites, China, Greece and Rome, etc. On the other hand, when people mention "antiquity," they're generally talking about the period of ancient history circa 800 BCE to 500 CE. This is defined as the period coinciding with the Greco-Roman period, but it's important to note that there were other important developments going on in other parts of the world during this time as well.

How far do you agree that in the English educational system, kings who generally fit in with the stereotypical "king" epitome (eg John, Henry VIII, Charles I) are given an unfair precedent?