This really caught my attention and i thought that it must have been a translation error and i looked for the manifesto in German ( i was reading it in Spanish) and the word that appears is "Ritter" which as far as i understand only means "knight". What am i missing? Marx surely would have been familiarized With medieval knights due to their popularity during the romantic era so I'm really puzzled by this possible mistake.

Pd: In case you were wondering, Yes, I was casually reading the communist manifesto

Wikipedia describes the selection process as "Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine elected forty-five. These forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who elected the doge.".

Was there a reason these specific procedures came about? Like why not just have the first 30 chosen by lot choose the doge? It seems strange that there are multiple steps of reduction and increase in the number of people. Especially the case at the start where a lot is used twice in a row (30 by lot reduced to 9 by lot). Why not just select 9 by lot and skip the step with 30?

Were steps added over time, or was the system implemented all in one go? If it changed over time, what caused the need for the changes?

I’ve always wondered how it was possible that after the First World War Austria was dismantled so thoroughly. From how I see it, while it could have been argued that Vienna was responsible for the war, it was Germany who kept the war going for four years. At the end of the war it clearly looked like the big bad boy of Europe and its potential of locking an entire continent in total war had been shown. So why was Germany treated, though still harshly, far better than Austria-Hungary at Versailles?
The obvious reason is of course the ethnic composition of the two empires. Germany was more or less homogeneous and overly german, while Austria-Hungary was a complete mess. But still it doesn’t seem enough. The Habsburg empire still had a rather strong identity, and if I can’t really see it keeping the slavic provinces, or even Hungary, Bohemia was still strongly connected to Vienna.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Germany, the bigger threat, lost some provinces and had to pay and get humiliated, while Austria-Hungary was dismembered and thrown off the map. It doesn’t really seem fair, why not just break it in two/three parts? Why completely destroy an historical european power in a single war?

Why is it that the French settled parts of Norh America that became Canada retained their culture while the parts that became America were completely assimilated?

In the years of Ceasars conquest of Gaul he spoke of the Belgea like they were one people but they were still divided into different tribes. Did those tribes think of each other as being a part of one people different from the other Gauls or was it a division made by the Romans and did the Belgea tribes think of the other Belgea tribes no more of being the same people as of the other Gauls?

I read that sentence somewhere along the internet, sometime ago. I could never find a source, nor could I find where I read it. Is there any truth to that statement?

Whenever the topic of Africa's historical population is approached, I always see two methods for determining the population, and two camps. It's odd that the historical community seems split like this, and I wanted to see how the people on this subreddit would weigh in. (This post is copied from the one of PDX forums, yes.)

The first group I've found believes Africa's population didn't exceed 50 million until at least 1500 A.D. They usually justify this by using back-projections from colonial population censuses. When the question of how the population could remain so low emerges, the answer given is that there isn't a suitable climate for mass production of calorie-dense goods.

The other group usually doesn't offer an estimate for the entire continent, but offers high enough estimates for particular regions of Africa, like the Kingdom of Benin, the Malian Empire, the Kingdom of Kongo, or the Kilwa sultanate, that the estimates can't peacefully coexist with those of the first group.

The reason this is a problem is because the second group tends to offer evidence directly from those regions, such as testimony from contemporaries, food production methods, documented village densities, and inferences from side texts. Evidence like this has placed me in the second group, and the wide-reaching explanations of the first just seem simplistic to me.

The fact remains that, not only is the second group split, but it also seems to be somewhat under-spoken when compared to the first group, as you have to do a bit of extra searching to find their answers.

When it comes to the population sizes of historical African cities, there are massive divides on how many people it could've held. Great Zimbabwe and Mbanza Kongo are estimated at having been capable of holding anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 people, depending on who you ask.

Here's the question: In the years before 1500 A.D, do you believe Africa had a population in excess of 50,000,000 people? Yes or no? Why?

(I want to wait until others have provided their opinions before I bring in the evidence I've gathered.)

Working on something based on a soldier based in a barracks (probably Montgomery) in post-reunified Berlin.

Curious if anyone has any idea how homosexuality was viewed, not on an official level, but more on a personal level. ie; if a soldier was suspected of being gay, or largely known to be in an “ask don’t tell” situational, what would their experience been like/how severe were the repercussions if discovered?

Were there moments between 1914-18 when people thought that surely the end was around the corner? And how did American involvement (and the Soviet disengagement) change that calculus, if at all.

I’ve heard (and I’m not sure if this is reliable) that in the late Roman Empire, technology was reaching a point that an industrial revolution of sorts could have happened, and that it was the turmoil following the fall of Rome that prevented it. Regardless of whether that is true, what historically did keep such a technological boom from occurring before the 19th century?

When entire families and households died, who and how did they take care of so many vacant properties? What were the property and ownership transfer laws at that time? When there were so many empty households in the city how did they clear out apartments? Were there designated "moving" companies that cleared everything out? Who did they let move in once things calmed down? How was this process taken care of by the authorities?

Were Soviet movies such as Moscow does not believe in tears an accurate representation of late Soviet communism?

Would the casualty of the Allies have been lower? I heard that some planners or some generals in the British high commands actually suggested the idea, but it was promptly rejected. Would the night beach assault have worked in the Allies' favor or the German's? What it would have been like for the American soldiers at Omaha beach?

Currently, I am researching how to improve the interests in history for children aged 10 - 12. Therefore I am interested what people who're already interested think about this. That's why I want to know what makes you like history (or the specific era you're focussing on).

Basically the title. In the time shortly before and after WWI, how much would it cost someone to fly between two cities. I'm just looking for general going rates, obviously different cities are different distances apart. Thanks in advance!