Did they get executed, did Vienna Art university survive?

I recently saw highlights of England's victory against West Germany in the 1966 football world cup final. I noticed that members of the crowd were waving Union Jacks, but I didn't see any St George flags. My personal experience of watching England play since the 1990s involves seeing the English flag, the St George cross, being more prevalent among supporters than the union Jack.

Does my experience reflect reality? If so, when and why did this change?

Thanks.

Endless works of great art and literature have come out of the United States but, it seems, not much classical music. I do not understand why that is considering so many Americans had European backgrounds and came from countries famous for classical music such as Germany and Italy. Thank you in advance, I really appreciate it. To clarify, I also mean Romantic music from the 19th century.

I get why Hannibal lost, due to his cavalry disadvantage, his failed elephant charge, inexperienced first two lines, and the flanking of his experienced third line. However it just doesn't seem possible to me, maybe it's wishful thinking but Hannibal was ALWAYS one step ahead of the Roman's and was indefeatable. How did he let this happen. It seems like Zama was a complete failure for Hannibal and on his own territory none the less. Do you think Hannibal lost his edge after 14 years since his prime at Cannae? Was he battle weary while Scipio was just in his prime. Do you think its possible (despite how irrational it sounds) that hannibal simply gave up on his fight agaisnt Rome. Maybe he saw that after slaughtering Rome for 15 years he decided that the resolve of his fellow countryman could never defeat the perseverance of the Romans. Even if he won at Zama Rome would just create more armies or navies. Is it possible that after 15 years of hardship he gave up. And decided to attack Rome in more indirect ways, like he did after his expulsion from Carthage. I'm probaly overthinking it, it just seems that a Man who showed such creativity and deception in every other encounter would lose a battle at his own Doorstep so easily. Afterall theres much that has been pspt to history. Just because Livy recounts so much detail doesn't mean many factors have surely been forgotten.

Hello how can I find where plato have conversation with egyption priest where the priest ask him, what is the religion and belief of Greece and Plato start to explaining it start with flood and the Egyptian priest said so you only have a record of the last flood or something like that where he starts telling him how many times flood happened. I need help to pin point where I can find this because I watched maybe graham Hancock talk about it on a video on YouTube and I can't find it, this leads to another research I've been doing and they are linked together, so if anyone can help me confirm this would be great.

I’ve heard a fair bit about the role of sectarianism in the Ottoman-Safavid conflicts, with the Ottomans carrying the mantle of Sunni Islam and the Safavids carrying the banner of Shi’ite Islam. Did sectarianism motivate any conflicts or hostility between the Safavids and their eastern neighbor, the Mughals? Also, if sectarianism and Mughal-Safavid hostilities were related, which preceded?

I was recently watching Annie Hall and an interesting question came to mind. During a scene when splitting possessions, Alvy Singer has a bunch of buttons. Impeach Johnson, impeach Nixon, impeach Ford, and impeach Reagan.

Now the movie came out in 1977, three years before Reagan’s election in 1980. Was Reagan seen as such an eventuality in 1977 that it was considered a certainty he would become president? Was this due to his strong showing challenging Ford in the 1976 Republican primary?

So my girlfriend was watching a documentary on Rome earlier today and the episode was about Caligula. The documentary mentioned that Caligula slipped into a several month coma before waking up.

How did the doctors of the time manage to provide his body with nutrients? I don't know anything about coma's, but would they have been able to feed/hydrate a coma-patient before transfusions? If so, did they just force-feed them?

One of my friends insist that it was a major part of 'viking code' to never attack an enemy from behind. Do we know if this is true or not?

I was fascinated by this since at the time, the Napoleonic Wars were already underway in Europe, and the battles occurring there must have looked extremely alien in the environment of the New World.

Did the native warriors ever attempt to create line batallions and make use of artillery? Or did the United States ever make extensive use of irregular infantry tactics?

We've all heard of the Boston Tea Party and Massacre and whatnot, but I've never heard of any riots. Are they just a modern phenomenon?

I know we are Homo sapiens, but recently read about other sub sets using tools and stuff too.

Was there much conflict? Interaction? What happened that made it so we are still here, but they’re not?

I've read that the new Falcon Heavy currently being built will still not be as large as the Saturn V rocket. Why was a smaller rocket not made? I was reading something online saying they didn't know how much power they would need so they over built it. I find that extremely hard to believe is that true?

The more I read about knights bannerets the more confused I get.

(First off, is the plural form knights banneret as in surgeons general or knight bannerets or knights bannerets?)

So far, I’ve seen five definitions/explanations of what it is. Some which seems to contradict each other.

It was a military rank given to knights leading a small unit of knights on the battle field.

It was an honorific title given to nobles as reward or to single out their achievements. Considering that I’ve read about knights being turned into bannerets after a battle was over and in civilian court it doesn’t seem to work well with it being a military rank.

It was an aristocratic title given to nobles below baron but above knight bachelor. (That might or might not have something to do with later baronets.)

It was title given to landowning knights that could afford to raise a certain number of knights from their lands but that was not a baron or at least as rich as one.

It was a special kind of knight. Cause I’ve also read examples from feudal musters where a noble is said to have raised a retinue consisting of “X” number of knights of which “Z” number were knight bannerets. Which doesn’t seem to mesh with it being a rich landowning knight with his own retinue.

So colour me confused.

The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that they were created by cutting off the tip on a pennant to create a square banner.

I'll admit that I suspect that several of these examples are wrong or at least badly misunderstood by me because of the confusing examples I've read.

I’ve always wondered about “D-Day” and the odd tactics that surrounded it. I always felt like it was putting soldiers in an unnecessary, “fish in a barrel” situation.

What was the point of attacking on that front?

Was there no intel that they were headed straight to death?

Did we technically win that battle?

More specifically, was the army or navy more dominate at that time? Thanks for your time, I am game developer working on a mod project for that era.