Out of the various Italian Merchant Repiblics, Venice was the longest lasting and perhaps the most prosperous Republic. After nearing total annihilation in the Fourth Venetian-Genoa war, how was it able to stage a comeback while its rival declined?

I'm leaning towards self-interest as it started during ww1 when the allies wanted to resurrect an eastern front and prevent the central powers getting materials sent by the allies to russia. On the other hand the allies had clear distain against Bolshevism and continued their war even though WW1 had ended. Then theres also the split answer where they didnt want Russia to be communist / socialist cause that might mean losing a trade partner and former "anti-german" ally. Anyone have an idea?

​

ps. With Allies I'm particularly interested in the US,UK and France

I'm struggling to respond to these, cause I kind of agree even though I know I shouldn't

[deleted]

I wasn’t sure wether this belonged here on rather in r/History, so if this is the wrong place, I’ll go over there. Secondly, English isn’t my first language, so sorry if I make any mistakes.

Yesterday, for my birthday, one of my best friends gifted me this bronze ring. It comes with its own Certificate of Authenticity from a London art gallery called Pax Romana. The handwriting on the certificate is frankly awful, but to the best of my ability, I’ve discerned that it says “Medieval crusaders era bronze ring with star of Bethlehem”.

I’ve Googled some, and these bronze rings with very similar engravings seem to be pretty common; I found several on auction websites and such, but I couldn’t find a lot about who wore them, or why.

According to my friend, the ring should be from the 11th century, originating from somewhere around Acre (/ Akka), and would have been worn by either a baron or a bishop. It must have been a little dude, because I have small hands even for a woman, and it fits me, lol.

My questions:

*These rings don’t seem to be so rare, nor very expensive, so I’m wondering how common these rings were back in the day?

*Is it true that only high placed people would wear this ring, or were these rings handed out to whomever signed up for the crusade?

*What exactly did such a ring signify? Was it somewhat prestigious, or was it the medieval equivalent of “I went to Acre and all I got was this lousy ring”?

*Would this ring, and others like it, have looked the way it looks now? Or would they have been coloured or have been inlaid with gold leaf or something?

I have pictures of the ring and of the certificate. I haven’t figured out how to upload them best, but if anyone asks, I can probably try :)

they cut off giant argentinia from the west coast and make bolivia one of only 2 landlocked countires in south america. with ports being so important and chile being so narrow and occupying half of south americas west coast i don't understand how they got away with it. argentinia and bolivia can basically see the ocean. were there serious attempts at changing that?

The US uniformed services use a gold and silver oak leaf as the symbol of ranks for Lieutenant Commanders/Majors/O-4 and Commanders/Lieutenant Colonels/O-5. This is compared to gold or silver bars for lower ranks and an eagle or stars for higher ranks. Outside of the American services it doesn’t seem to be a common device either, except as a modifier on awards.

What led to this unique usage of an oak leaf?

Are there any records apart from bible itself, which suggest that such a person might have existed? Of course not possesing divine power, but maybe causing an uproar among the contemporary Jewish practicioners, which resulted in his crucifiction?

From Sir Gawain and the Green Knight through English Common Law until 1996, 'a year and a day' seems to have be a common unit of time measurement.

How exactly did this come to be? Why not simply a year? And where and when did the phrase/notion originate from?

Thanks!

E.g. Communist Cambodia was called Democratic Kampuchea, North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, etc. Why did they do this if there was no democracy whatsoever in their countries?

I've been looking for a while, specifically for something for Herodotus however I can't find any specific quote straight from him or source. Any help as to where I can find one ASAP is greatly appreciated.

There is this common idea that the GOP used to be a liberal party and the Democrats were conservatives up until some time in the 60s, that may have been true on the local and state level (I’m from Louisiana, my whole family and I are quite conservative and until the mid-2000s they were all registered Democrats who voted a straight blue ticket on everything but the presidential election) but by the 50s the national Dems were a very liberal party dominated by progressives yankees who strongly supported civil rights, opposed HUAC and preferred a more dovish approach to the Soviets, pretty diametrically opposed to the social values of the South, so why is it that in 52, 56 and 60 the South went so solidly for the Democratic candidate?

I know that some of it might have been force of habit, my grandpa’s first election was 1964 when he was 19, he told me that he preferred Goldwater but voted for Johnson because he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a Republican, especially a Republican from outside of the South, against a Democrat from Texas, but it can’t be that huge majorities of voters in the South went Democrat out of a sense of party loyalty regardless of the candidate, especially since the 52, 56 and 60 candidates were yankees. So how did Stevenson and Kennedy relate to Southern voters and get them to vote for them? Interestingly, Kennedy won by much slimmer margins than Stevenson in the South, but I don’t know if that was because he was a Catholic or because of his platform.

I understand that in all 3 of those elections the GOP candidates were essentially liberals so neither of them represented the Southern zeitgeist, but Stevenson and Kennedy were evidently more opposed to the politics of the South at that time than Eisenhower and Nixon were.

Every student in any South Asian school is taught that the British inflamed inter-racial tensions to prevent a united front forming and threatening their dominion. But I've seen scarcely any examples of how they actually implemented it.

For example, the Myans built expansive cities with roads and large permanent structure, while the Native American tribes to the north mainly stayed nomadic, or only had small communities. Why is this?

I have found references to the laws on multiple sites like Hurstwic but have not been able to find the laws themselves. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

​

Mods this did not appear to violate the rules but if it does please tell me.

Did Hitler know everything about the concentration camps? Like how they killed them? Or the labor they were forced to do? I'm just curious if he was very involved in how they killed the Jews or if he let someone else deal with the details.

Archaeologists have uncovered various evidence of ancient "settled" (i.e., city-dwelling) civilizations going back into pre-history. Are there any markers that persist through enough time, so that we are relatively certain they are among the first? Is it possible or plausible that there have been others perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of years older, of which we have no evidence?

Note, apologies if this doesn't quite fit the sub.

I was asking because it’s a “Debatable” subject among my friends and I wanted someone who actually knows for sure to answer.

How did the first merchants and explorers communicate with each other? Also I would like to know generally how any two ancient nations established communication initially.