from Harari, "A Brief History of Humankind"

I know these are usually safe ways of practicing, because throwing someone on their face is hard to train safely. I'm wondering why it was so important for knights, legionaries, samurai, hoplites etc. to get their opponent on their backs, since they've all trained grappling in similar ways.

I googled this but couldn't find the explanation so that's why I'm asking it here. The cathedrals of Firenze (Florence) and Pisa consist of 3 separate buildings: the Duomo (church), the Campanile (bell tower) and the Baptisterium (baptistry).

Why is it that for these churches there are 3 separate buildings where as for every (I think) other church, 1 building covers all 3 things? Why are the cathedrals of Pisa and Florence different?

[deleted]

This may be a dumb question but it seems like Romans had a long military service (25 years I think for a soldier) and the Barbarians were fighting since young teenagers. Given the nutrition of the times how muscular and in shape were these soldiers?

Did this extend into the medieval era?

I've often seen it argued that if only the Germans had realized in 1918 that they were about to get a big influx of troops from the east they would have avoided antagonizing the Americans and finally won the war.

First off, is this judgement generally accepted among historians of the war, or do some argue it would have remained a standstill?

More importantly, if this was perhaps the case, why didn't the Germans just seek an immediate peace deal with the Russians after the provisional government was established? Was this debated in the high command?

I'm not certain about Kerensky, but Lenin obviously gave away just about everything they asked for to eventually get a deal. Why not agree to something with more generous or fair terms to get it done two years quicker, so you can focus on the west and gain a bigger prize?

With France and England subdued they could have focused on the east later if they wanted, after they had time to rebuild. It would just seem like the obvious rational policy to me.

[deleted]

I'm reading a translation of Bernal Díaz del Castillo's memoir, it's mentioned that Montezuma on several occasions offers Cortés' party intricate gold jewelry as gifts, including a "very rich necklace made of golden crabs, a marvellous piece of work...". How advanced was Aztec metalworking, their carpentry, their ability to craft things in general?

I'm sure it's near impossible to have precise records for such a thing with a civilization that existed such a long time ago, but are there some kind of estimates of the number of people who lived in Ancient Egypt and its cities? Not the easiest question, but thanks in advance to anyone who would take time to answer!

In 1946 Königsberg was renamed into Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad got its name by Mikhail Kalinin, a Bolshevik revolutionary. All other cities, after 1991 and fall of Soviet Union, that got there names by communist or socialist was changed except this one. Is there any reason for this? If there is, what is the reason?

Was it to be certain that priests (and popes) would leave no heirs, seeking to inherit church wealth?

I'm researching American foreign policy toward Iran from the end of Truman's administration through Eisenhower. I'm currently sifting through the Foreign Relations of the United States series for primary source docs. (I'm always open to other suggestions.) I feel that I need a solid social or political history of Iran during this period for some added context. Thanks!