Central American Indians built massive Temples and had huge cities, while Northern American Indians lived in Tepees and were more nomadic. Why were they so different from each other?

The wikipedia article about the Byzantine emperor Heraclius states, with a reference to Davis, Leo Donald. The first seven ecumenical councils (325–787): their history and theology (1990 ed.). Liturgical Press, that "one of the most important legacies of Heraclius was changing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek in 620". Obviously, a large part of the Eastern Roman Empire constituted of lands populated by Greeks, but what prompted this change in exactly this period? What made Latin less powerful?

We’ve all seen media of the trenches on the Western Front, but what did warfare look like during WWI before the trenches were dug? And on the Eastern and Middle Eastern Fronts where trenches seemed to be used less?

• Did infantry use 19th century line infantry tactics and charge their opponents with bayonets?

• Were cavalry charges every used?

• How did millions of troops strategically move from place to place (after being moved by rail) without widespread use of mechanized equipment/units?

• Did Urban Warfare exist at all during the war?

• Did peoples under German occupation ever revolt or engage in guerrila warfare?

As the title says, how many of the 130 000 workers that worked on it knew of its end goal?

I've never understood why some rivers become the center of a nation or civilization while others are used as militarized demarcation lines. What characteristics differentiate the sorts of rivers that become population centers vs borders/defensive lines?

I'm aware that the meme of "lions led by donkeys" is largely bunk, with many WWI commanders being rehabilitated as the competent leaders they were.

But I'm curious if some of the old favourites to rag on, namely Cadorna and von Hotzendorf have also been unjustly dragged through the mud.

Are the negative reputations of these two really deserved?

Or any negative connotation with anything in history?

From my limited knowledge of this rifle, it was used by cavalry troops and was probably used against Native Americans, along with many other firearms of the time. But I'm looking for something specific to this pattern that might evoke really bad emotions.

​

South Korea used to be a underdeveloped country. The introduction of Western Christianity seemed to help that country achieve cultural standards and educational success. You can find many Koreans studying fine arts in Germany, Austria, Russia, USA. By opening their minds to European or Western culture, the country has recent achieved a seat in the global economy (electronics, TV dramas, entertainment, fashion, cosmetics).

Japan, on the other hand, is heavily based on Eastern religion (Shinto, Zen Buddhism), but has for a long time, made contributions in arts and culture, automobiles, electronics. Their products are known to be good quality, even at a low price.

How come Japan was able to achieve such high cultural, educational and economical standards without the influence of Western religion or cultures?

I’m wondering about slavery in Sweden, I know we had something called trälar ( basically slaves) long before the 1800s. Is this a real statement? How did the “slave-scene” look in Sweden from like Viking age to 1800s

[deleted]

Between the emergence of the Scandinavian monarchies and the Early Modern era, how was government structured? Did it develop and adapt its own "feudal" principles borrowed from their neighbors did to the South and West? I would assume that to some degree they must have as the Scandinavian government and people developed social and commercial ties with the rest of Europe. However, I have no idea if this was actually the case. Was government structured significantly differently in Scandinavia compared to other Western European monarchies?

I know the Germans started it off on a large scale at Ypres. My question is why did they use gas? Was it to break the stalemate on the Western Front?

"The Guardian" changes to "The Observer" on Sundays, "The Sun" used to become "News of the World". Most (if not all) British newspapers do this. The names often reflect the fact that they are the same newspaper (e.g. the "Daily Mail" becoming "The Mail on Sunday").

Essentially they are the same newspapers, so why do they take different names? Sure, they have different staff and different features, but so do the Saturday editions of papers, and those keep the name of their weekday counterpart.

How did this tradition arise?

Does anyone know of any books on Hungary and Bohemia in the 15th and 16th centuries, especially the reigns of Matthias Corvinus and Vladislaus II Jagiellon? I know of Pál Engel's book on on medieval Hungary and Marcus Tanner's book on Matthias Corvinus' library, but I can't find much more than that, at least in English.

On a related note, I've also been trying to find information on Cardinal Tamás Bakócz, who became the chief minister and advisor to the Vladislaus II Jagiellon, and tried to get himself elected Pope at the conclave of 1513.

Can someone recommend me some less biased or even unbiased sources on the whole struggle in general (pre events or histrionic things that have happend that tie into it ,leading up to the conflict , during the conflict and the aftermath + current state).

And if possible give a summary from both sides?

In general I want to try to form my own opinion and obviously understand the conflict as objectively as possible.

Thanks a lot in advance.

The Zimmermann Telegram was a crucial component in the United States' decision to enter WWI. However, had it not been intercepted and Mexico had received the message, would Mexico's political and economic climate have allowed them to attack the States, and was the government willing to do so given the promise of German support?

It looks like there is not much literature about this subject and most of it seems to concentrate on the political and economical aspects of third century crisis. I wondered if the crisis had any lasting effects on the military?