[deleted]

I remember being told that chess is a very old game. Why then, is the queen the strongest piece in the game (she can move around the easiest), and the king so weak (can only move 1 space). I was wondering why it is like this because intuitively it seems historically inaccurate. I understand that the game is won and lost on the king and in that sense he is the most powerful piece. But even then the queen seems really powerful compared to other pieces. When historically is seems that the queens carried very little power. Is there a reason historically that this is the way it is. Or am i missing something obvious?

I know a lot of women died giving birth or shortly thereafter. But was their death due to blood loss? What would happen if they were unable to naturally give birth because of their petite size or the positioning of the fetus in the womb? Were c- sections common and what was the mortality rate of the child and mother after one?

How did the Roman's deal with such a completely different religion as that of the Egyptians? I know that during their conquests they would often adopt local gods into their own religion and either make them minor gods, but how did they deal with a more advanced religion that was so different than their own?

When did this association begin? How did it happen?

Did we simply not know where it was? Or did we lack the technology to seek it out? Did people ever excavate shipwrecks before modern times? If we knew where the Titanic was even fifteen years after it sank, how might we have gone about excavating it?

This is especially impressive considering the tenuous relationship between the countries in question and the lack of a large émigré community to push these hobbies. Why did the locals come to adopt the "invaders'" favorite pastime?

I was trying to research about the fall of the Manchu Dynasty, but all that comes of is the Qing Dynasty. Some people said that they are the same thing, while others argue they are different. I know that the Qing Dynasty had roots from Manchuria, but were they two entirely different dynasties?

Why do Scots have bagpipes and kilts in their traditional culture instead of pictish and Norse (their ancestors) elements in their culture? Why do Poles have polka instead of much older slavic music? Why don't the French have Frankish or Gaulish elements of tradition? It seems like european culture was invented in the 17-1800's across europe based on the fashion and instruments used in their music in their respective customs. Not only this but their traditional clothing seems to be solely for show and would be utterly impractical as a daily clothing choice. British royal guard aren't dressed to fight, in fact I don't think they can even run without that poofy hat falling off or the pants ripping, Etcetera. Thank you for any insight on this!

I know that I've been taught all my life that Ford's decision was about healing the country, but what do we know about his actual motivations?

Secondly, how much did pardoning Nixon figure into Ford losing his bid for re-election? I heard this morning that it was arguably the single most decisive factor, but I've never heard that before, so I'm curious what historians here would think of such a claim.

What brought integrity back to the field? Was this just a shift in attitudes in the industry of were there legislative solutions, or something else entirely?

When I think of the birth place of martial arts, I think of militaries or some sort of policing organization. Why then did supposedly peaceful monks in soma Asian countries develop martial arts and why did the idea of Buddhist monks practicing martial arts become so prevalent?

Were there any steps that could have been taken to avoid the civil war in the years leading up to fort sumter?

My mother has told me that bichon frises were taken on ships by Italian, Spanish and French sailors. Wikipedia agrees with this but doesn’t really give an explanation why.

[deleted]

Like maybe the decay rate is too slow or the incorporation isn't consistent enough? It's a question I've been turning over in my head for a few days now but I just don't have the background to answer it.

Thanks everyone!

There's been renewed focus on protectionism and trade wars due to recent events. I certainly buy that trade wars played a large role in the two world wars, but how big was that role? Trade wars certainly couldn't have been the sole cause of the wars.

I also have read a lot about protectionism playing a large role in WW2, but what about WW1? Was it any larger or smaller?

We had a lesson about Pompeii today in class and one of my pupils pointed out that on some of the pictures we saw from the dead bodies the people seem to have been rather in movement. For example one man was laying but his upper body was rised and he leaned on his arms like he was crawling away. Neither them nor I could find an explanation for those positions since we both agreed that usually when you die after a while you would sink to the ground when the muscels in your body relax during the first hours after death.

Originally asked as a follow-up, a mod suggested making this its own thread.