It seems like that one pattern is the default

That the aid the Nationalists received (such as the airlift to Seville at the start of the war) was critical for their victory is undisputed. However, outside of that I have read a bit of contradicting reasons to why the Spanish Civil War played out as it did. I have read for example that the disunity on the Republican side is over- and understated, which doesn't really help in getting a clear answer to this question. I was wondering if there was a somewhat consensus here on the reasons for the outcome of the war.

Was it the loss of military leadership? Was Franco a more effective ruler than the Republican side? Was it that the Nationalists had the Army of Africa as the most capable armed force on their side? Infighting on the Republican side? And how do you even effectively quantify the reasons why the Republicans failed to win the civil war even though their starting position was better?

I remember laughing so hard when he explained people in the past would say stuff like show me negative 3 sheep.

My question is, when did this happen and how long did it take for society to understand the concept of negative numbers?

Thanks in advance if you take the time to reply

After seeing the Assassin’s Creed gameplay I’ve been curious.

Can you please help me in verifying the following claims that went viral on social media about the Hagia Sophia-:

1. After Conquering Constantinople, Hagia Sophia was purchased by Sultan Mehmet II, after then it was converted to a mosque.

2. Most of the Christians migrated, some of them converted to Islam and Very Few Christians remained in Constantinople. 

Can you recommend me a  book on the conquest of Constantinople?

Odd question.

Germany had occupied all of the Atlantic coastlines of France, as well as Paris, to my understanding mostly for unhindered access to the infrastructure and naval bases, as well as other reasons, so cities like Brest, Paris, and Borduex, but the Mediterranean cities (aside from Nice) were left unoccupied, so why weren't one of those cities chosen to be the capitol?

But why wasn't a larger or arguably more important city chosen to be the capitol, such as Marseille, Monpellier, or Lyon designated as the capitol?

Once again I'm aware it's a really odd question but Vichy kind of seems like an arbitrary choice, and I'd like to know if this was the case or if there was a strategic decision behind it

^

I am a writer currently researching the stories of escaped convicts in mid-19th century Bermuda. These convicts had been sent here for their labour, mainly to build Britain's Atlantic naval base and other assorted infrastructure.

I am curious to know what factor religion played into their compliance. Was a devout man more likely to see out his time? Would an irreligious man be more tempted to escape?

My girlfriend and I were trying to remember where Latvia was in Europe. After opening Google Earth, I saw it was next to Estonia, and Lithuania. Then just south of there, beneath Poland, is Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, then east toward Romania, and Georgia.

Then I remembered old/local names for places, like Italia, Germania, Brittania, Francia. Even though it doesn't have the literal suffix, "-ia," this could include España. Even in the US, there's Pennsylvania, and another Georgia.

I assume it goes back to Greek or Roman, judging by the areas, and probably meant something along the lines of, "land," "of the land," "realm," etc. But I found it hard to Google and search for this exact question.

Where does this suffix originate, and how did it come to be so prevalent among so many different cultures?

^

Like if you were a woman and long sighted and expected to do sewing and mending, what would you have done? Or if you were short sighted and literally everything from 3 feet in front of you was fuzzy. Just something I’ve always wondered about, being a shortsighted person myself, like how would I have coped if I had lived in the times before visual aids such as glasses or contacts were around

There has been again shooting between the two countries, and I've understood their conflict started immediately after (or even some time before) the Soviet Union collapsed. How tense their relations were when they were both part of the Soviet Union?

I’ve been reading about agriculture for the last few days, but I can’t really seem to find any linear progression in the spread of major agricultural innovations (largely due to regional environments making many innovations only being useful to a limited number of places, like innovations in farming on flood plains not really being useful for someone living on the steppe for instance).

Can you help me make sense of agricultural history? What were some major innovations that really took off and spread, being more universally taken up (like crop rotations for instance)? Or can you point me in the right direction to get going on it?

According to the popular account, Bodhidharma (Da Mo), having been a member of the Kshatriya caste before become an ascetic, taught the rudiments of Indian martial arts to the monks at Shaolin in order to whip them into better shape. These techniques were the predecessor Shaolin Kung Fu, which itself was the predecessor of many styles of Kung Fu.

How much truth is there to this account? What did martial practices look like in China prior to Bodhidharma? Did he actually exist?

Hello all!

I've been watching The Last Kingdom on Netflix and have really been enjoying the portrayals of cultures at the time (866 - 910 AD), especially the Danes. I realize TLK is a fictional series, so I was hoping someone could recommend some non-fiction titles? I'm mostly curious about Danish / Viking culture at the time, but I'm open to suggestions about the Britons, Saxons, etc. as well. I guess I need a good history binge!

Thank you!

Title sums it up but it seems kinda odd they would essentially claim ownership of a whole continent 60 years after their birth, especially against presumably stronger powers at the time like Britain and France

With seemingly nothing I mean that I don't doubt there were so many philosophers and scientists reaching nothing. No breakthroughs, no major contributions to science. Also, I believe some philosophers' theories also might've made sense or well-perceived only hundreds or even thousands of years later.

I find it hard to believe that many of these had an actual job. E.G Nicolaus Copernicus ploughing the land, or Plato selling fish at the market in between his teaching Aristotle.

So, who was seemingly stupid/mad enough to pay for the upkeep of both the very famous and not so famous philosophers and scientists of old? In retrospect it was a good investment for mankind, but surely it'd be a bad investment if there were no immediate profits to be gained?