Almost every modern functioning state seems to have a similar blueprint.

There are 3 powers: parliament, government and judiciary. Parliament is elected and gives laws, government voted by parliament and provides administrations while the judiciary is professionalized/meritocratic applying the law. Other common things: members of parliaments are voted from political parties, there is a high/supreme court (or constitutional court), attorney general and others.

The question is who and when invented this blueprint? And how come is this model so ubiquitous?

As part of the checklist for preparing to drop the bomb, Maj Kong reads out the contents of the aircrew members survival kit.

Maj Kong: "Survival kit contents check. In them you’ll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency raisons[sic]; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."

Things such as the bible, phrase book and the gold seem to toe the line between reasonable and comic. Even prophylactics (specifically condoms) are often cited as a good means of keeping things dry from rain.

What sort of things would a member of the US armed forces have been issued in such a survival kit intended for use after a nuclear exchange during the Cold War? Would there have been significant differences between military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force)?

Seeing as we don't actually have the original documents, and those we do have have gone through countless revisions, when citing the Bible or the Qur'an is it correct to call them primary sources as a historian?

For example Dublin, York, or Kiev , were they independent with a leader, and laws of their own or were they clients of the kingdoms back in Scandinavia?

arbeit macht frei and *jedem das seine

• are both really beautiful sentences on their own. Yet, they were featured on the gates of the places on earth which would truly test the meaning of these phrases. Is there account of nazis who could see the irony behind these slogans?

I've had a pretty easy time tracking down the original versions of their names, but their title eludes me. One thing I know for sure is that they were not called "king".

generally amongst the general public, exacerbated by the digital technologies in assisting in the dissemination of ideas

[deleted]

Gavrilo Princip's Sandwich is just one of those myths that refuses to die, but was he there trying to hide/get away/mope, or was it - as I've read somewhere I can't now remember - part of the plan as being his assigned position for the return journey.

Knowing the route, would he choose somewhere along it to hide?

So I would like to know, how much did a English longbow from the 1300s cost and how long did it take to make one.

Edit: fixed spelling and sorry for the title

Did they also recognise the other harmful effects of smoking and nicotine addiction?

I was wondering since I was reading about the Franco-Thai war, and don't really understand if the Thai were fighting the Nazi sympathizer French or the "good" French.

France in WW2 is very confusing.

It is a common trend for Christian apologists to assert that the NT is more reliable as a historical source than other ancient sources because they were written so much closer to the original events and copied faithfully to modern day, opposed to ancient sources such as Arrian who lived more than two hundred years after Alexander and had very little copies made.

I tried searching for an objective biblical scholar's opinion on this, but kept being referred to Christian websites. So is there any truth to this? I feel like if there was, historians would take the New Testament much more seriously than they have in the past.

I’ve been on a serious Roman history kick lately, and have been reading Tom Holland’s Rubicon which has me thinking about the republic. In many things I read/listen to, generals are said to spend timing raising legions. Or they quickly raise a legion, altering a conflict.

On a more granular level than simply “they recruited troops”, what did this process actually look like? How long did it take? How long was spent then training/drilling the troops? What was the sales pitch, and who was the audience.

Let’s say the last 100 or so years of the republic for a time period if that helps, but any time in ancient Roman history would be interesting.

[deleted]