Additionally, did they recruit settled peoples other than the siege engineers from China?

In several months I'm starting to study history in Europe. Due to our history course in school I know a decent amount of European history of the 19 and 20th century, but I'm interested in what other pieces of literature are a great way to learn more.

Thanks in advance

Hello I'm from the western hemisphere and don't much about eastern cultures. I was wondering if someone could explain to me what influences Russia had on India and/or vice versa; any topic you like from culture to society or architecture during any time periods from the 20th century back to the 17th century.

Any bits of information are helpful, if you know something please contribute! :)

Just finished watching Band of Brothers on Amazon video, and near the end I had this lingering thought. In the last few episodes the Germans were with the Americans in Austria I believe directing citizens, and then later one of the captain's meets with a German general who addresses his troops.

I'm just thinking, these guys just fought each other for 5 years, how would the allies be able to trust the Germans to not shoot them when their backs were turned, or go rogue and what not. Same thing in the Pacific, how would they be able to trust any of the former enemies after WW2 knowing they'd been trying to kill them for years?

What do we know about his experiments?

How much support did he get from the Soviet government?

I mainly talking about the Bohemian part. Why not "that Austrian corporal"?

The story I've been told long ago was that a tribe called the Scotti invaded present day Scotland from Ireland and conquering the Picts. This, like many other conquest narratives I've seen, sounds very hard to believe. What really happened between the Picts and the Scots?

In "Patton, Montgomery, Rommel Masters of War," Terry Brighton said that as part of Eisenhower losing a bet to Montgomery on how fast Sfax could be taken, Montgomery won a B-17 to use for personal transport during the war.

"The second skirmish was triggered by Monty on April 10 when the Eighth Army, following Messe's retreating troops, entered Sfax. Sometime earlier, during a meeting at which General Bedell Smith represented Eisenhower, Monty had said that he would take Sfax by April 15 and asked if Bedell Smith wished to make a bet of it. The American, perhaps not realizing that not realizing that Monty was in earnest, said that if he got there by the date Eisenhower would give him anything he wanted. Monty replied immediately that he wanted an American plane: "A Flying Fortress complete with American crew to remain on the US payroll, my personal property until the war ends." On April 10, having taken Sfax five days earlier than the bet specified, he immediately sent a signal: "Mosr Immediate. Personal from Montgomery to Eisenhower. Have arrived Sfax. Recall our bet. Despatch Flying Fortress."" (Patton, Montgomery, Rommel, 186)

Brighton brings up the aircraft whenever Montgomery used it, but doesnt mention the fate of the B-17. My question then is what came of the plane? Did it see further action, get scrapped, put in a museum, or was it used for some kind of training?

Was the public generally supportive? Was there any degree of opposition to the policies and those enforcing them? If so, what?

I'm looking for the period between roughly 500bc and 500 ad in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. I'm curious if a general overview exists of what kind of fuel was used for home and industrial uses. Was it just wood? Charcoal? Was coal available? Google is failing me and giving wrong-period information.

Thanks so much for your time.

It seems to be a tactical victory for the Union to the same extent that Gettysburg was a victory for the Union. The Confederates were driven out of the North and were able to escape with heavy casualties on both sides.

Was it comparable to western systems in any way (even if it wasn’t implemented in practice).

Obviously, the Soviets cracked down pretty hard on political opponents, but I’m more interested in “regular” crime (theft, murder, ...). I assume that they were interested in actually getting guilty people and avoiding innocent people, so how would a trial proceed? Did they keep any elements of tsarist Russia’s judicial system?

Was the USSR’s judicial system applied in Eastern Europe or did they keep similar systems to what they had pre-WW2?

I keep hearing this argument from thinkers like Ben Shapiro and most notably Jordan Peterson. I'm not as comprehensive in the subject compared to others, but I noticed whenever this question is proposed it is followed up with little detail or evidence. Before I go any further, I don't underestimate the value of Judeo-Christianity has on Western culture, but is it embedded in it? Why does religion have to influence culture? Can't culture influence religion? Why couldn't Western culture be embedded in Greco-Roman values? Many of Western laws and ethics are derived from that time period. The entire subject seems incredibly complex to grasp, considering the amount of history and subjects one would have to understand to even grasp the idea of the Western culture. I just wanted to ask someone who has a more in-dept understanding on the subject. I just see the argument composed by Shapiro and Peterson to be low hanging fruit and without any really evidence.