Why was the first crusade so successful but all the later crusades failed?

[deleted]

I'm no expert on Stone housing but it seems like there's a serious lack of stone-built houses in America. I know in Europe there are Stone houses pretty much everywhere and stucco houses...whatever stucco is. Why did Stone houses never take off in America?

As in, as common as it is portrayed in almost every tv show or story from that time

I've been reading up on the Jesuits and they seem to have been wildly popular and successful throughout the world and they were founded by Spanish priests for the most part... Why the sudden reversal of fortunes in the 1700s? Additionally, what were/are some criticisms of the Jesuit order over the centuries?

The reason I am asking is because I was playing Sid Meier's Pirates recently. In that game a naval officer is given the ranks of Major and Colonel before being promoted to Admiral.

Was there a common policy in some of the navies at the time to give an honorary Army ranks as a source of prestige?

I was wondering, how effective was splint armour? It looks like it could only protect against some kinds of attack, being made of metal strips with quite some distance between one another

[deleted]

I've read a lot of the obvious sources but I'm still unclear on what Julius Caesar told Rome and specifically Rome's other power brokers about why he was centralising all the power of Rome. Or even ultimately why he believed he was doing it, did he just do it because that's how the system he was born into worked and he was just thinking about power for himself in his own lifetime and he happened to be the best at that when the republic was in it's dying years? Or did he see that the republic was falling and have a hundred year plan to turn it into an empire for the benefit of everyone. And how did he explain what he was doing to other senators and specifically the few Romans held actual power. Was he like "you guys must see that I'm right or else Rome will be doomed" or was it like "don't hate the player just because I'm winning"?

I've read so much about Rome but always unsure if Caesar had any idea about what was going to happen to Rome if he became Emperor or if he just did it because all boys in a real Roman family fantasise about having and exercising total control over Rome.

I’m specifically thinking of ancient Egypt and Persia, which have many examples of close-kin marriage, at least among royal families. Indeed, I’ve even seen sources that flatly state that Zoroastrianism (the state religion of Persia) encouraged marriage between siblings.

But, i always thought that it was universal that humans feel innate disgust at the thought of sex with such close relatives. Is this true? If so, then how, and why was this allowed?

I know much of the backstory of this military excursion, like how Abraha attempted to create his own "version" (for lack of a better word) of the Ka'bah in Yemen to try and draw pilgrims away from Mecca and into Yemen, and when that failed he launched a campaign aimed at destroying the Arab Ka'bah. However, the only sources I am familiar with about the attack itself (and it's subsequent failure) comes from Islamic sources. These sources, like The Sealed Nectar by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, claim that Abraha's military conquest was foiled because of two things:

1. The lead elephant (in some cases, the only elephant) that he was riding on refused to advance past a certain point, and

2. God (Allah, if you will) sent a gigantic swarm of birds, each carrying one pebble in its beak and two talons, to pelt the army and drive them out of Mecca while the inhabitants sought refuge on a mountain.

Given that the vast majority of these sources are religious in nature, such as Surah 105 (Al-Fil) in the Qur'an verses 1 to 5 and the Prophetic hadith (sayings of Muhammad), it leaves quite a bit room for doubt.

My question, then, really boils down to this: Are there other, non-Islamic sources that can corroborate either Abraha's elephant refusing to advance or the alleged giant flock of birds?

Thanks in advance!

My assumption is that Jewish name would have diluted because of those rules, yet it's not the case, I cannot understand why.

Title.

I'm not as educated on the subject as I should be. I'd like to know why Liberia wasn't successful at its mission and why the project is considered a failure. (Also, could it have been a success or was it doomed to fail?)

As well, when did this term come in popular use, rather than ironclad, protected cruiser, and so on?

I've been looking into the origins of Japan, and all I've came to read were the usuals of how people have migrated by foot to the archipelago, and later, how the 'landbridge' disappeared underwater.

So I remember back in gradeschool, during Chinese history class, being taught about Qinshi Huang and his borderline obsessiveness on finding eternal life: to the point of sending people out at sea for the so called 'fountain of youth'.

I'm not certain if this was what the teacher had taught me or it was just a theory I had as a child, but is it possible that these people who have been sent out by the first emperor of China, be the first people of the countries we now know as Japan and Korea?

Could it be that they brought their families with them in the ship, with no intentions to come back and fully knowing that if they come back empty-handed, they'd be beheaded.

I couldn't find any articles confirming this. And it's literally grating my mind. I might just not be looking hard enough though.

In addition, I'd just like to point out how some of their cultures are similar. I love the linguistic similarities and as a mandarin speaker, when I hear some Nihongo and sometimes look at kanji, it makes me think it won't be too difficult for me to learn it.

Also, how long did it take to be published in other territories?

Many languages in Muslim-majority countries such as Urdu, Kurdish, Turkish (until fairly recently), Farsi, Pashto, Punjabi, and more, all have been written in the Perso-Arabic script. Does anyone know why Bengali is an an exception?