Was the planned coronation the natural result of her gaining superiority, or more an act of propaganda she could use to further her aims?

Like if someone did a horrible crime then escaped to a neighboring kingdom were they pretty much Scott free? Or could the neighboring kingdom be after them too or perhaps the first kingdom would send a troop of knights to bring them to justice. And if such a thing happened. Were these clandestine. Or was this a thing that was a breach of the other kingdoms sovereignty.

Or did all the above happen and it was just depending on the circumstances?

Did the Soviets or the British ever ask to occupy a portion of defeated Japan?

While most modern European monarchies were shifting towards constitutionalism, the Romanovs stubbornly clung to autocratic rule, especially Nicholas II. What were the reasons for that? I already know of the difficulties with abolishing serfdom, but that alone doesn't explain while they were seemingly so reluctant to modernize Russia and let go of their absolute power. I know that Nicholas II strongly believed in his Divine Right to autocratic rule, but why? Was it just an individual trait of his, or a family thing? And if so, why? Also, Alexander I apparently toyed with the idea of liberal reforms and Nicholas I expressed fear of divine punishment for Russian serfdom, but Alexander became conservative later on and didn't introduce any liberal changes to the government itself and Nicholas didn't really do anything to modernize Russia, at least nothing that I know of. Or was the Romanov conservatism just a string of personal coincidences?

Edit: Was it known as an Empire?

I would like to know more about the history of Switzerland. I am most curious about the XVII-XVIIIth century Old Swiss Confederacy, and the transition into the modern Switzerland.

For geography, I would be most interested in Bernese history, but really anything is fine with me.

I read English, German, Hungarian and a little French, so the best would be, if you could recommend books or articles written in or translated to one of these languages.

Throughout history, the Indian subcontinent was home to many ethnicities, religions, and states. Occasionally would an empire rule the entirety of the subcontinent, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. So my question is how did the idea of a unified India come to be? How was this idea sold to common people? How did India avoid escalation of conflicts (outside Kashmir) into civil wars?

Also can we say that Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka remained independent of India because they are not majority Hindu?

From watching the series on Hitler's inner circle and the obsession with super weapons and megastructures it is sort of astonishing that they achieved half of what they did. So was there problems like you see in nazi regime in the USSR, UK, US, Japan or in China?

Did they respect them as soldiers or did they see them as cannon fodder and inferior to actual British soldiers?

It took 200 years and the greatest minds on the planet, including Isaac Newton, to find a way to determine longitude at sea. The solution was to observe an event in local time and know the time of some other place, say London. The chronometer was invented that kept London time at sea, which was tricky, because clocks don't keep good time at sea. This solved the problem and let ships determine their longitude. It took hundreds of years.

My question is, why couldn't they just have noted the time of the port they departed from, say London, and then just recorded the number of hours that passed by way of hour glass? That way they would always know what London time was by taking the departure time and adding the number of hours.

Granted, it would have been tedious and you'd have to have chronomotists take shifts and such. But, considering before the chronometer's creation, ships had to sail all the way up to their correct latitude, and then just try their best to sail in a straight line, which could add weeks to their journey and significantly increase the chances of them dying. So, it seems worth the trouble in the absence of anything better.

Still, they didn't do this. This idea must have occurred to Galileo, Newton and Euler, so there is an important reason this wouldn't work, but I don't understand what it could be.

Please help.

“When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. And it wasn't considered an honor, it was considered a public service.”

Is this a true statement, did the Romans do this? If so was there a term for that appointment or position?

If you read the book, the character of Tom isn't subservient to whites or a "sell-out," yet his name has become an accepted pejorative for such well beyond the US.

[deleted]

From my understanding, Italy offered surrender to the allies with certain terms under the Armistice of Cassibilie, most notably to help defend Italy against the inevitable German invasion which the Allies accepted, opening the Italian front of the war.

Why did the Allies make exception to their demand of unconditional surrender for the Italians only just 9 months after the Conference?

I'm trying to find some data n this, but can't find anything at all. Has anyone got any idea how many died? After doing a lot of reading around Leningrad, it sounds like a truly horrific place to have had to have lived, hopefully nothing like that ever occurs again.