Give me reasons why Serbia was right in demanding for a separate independent state and how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was justified from the view of a Serb.

Question as above. What I'm asking is: why, if there was no strong anti-monarchist movement obvious prior to this, was the Kaiser forced to abdicate at this point? And what was the goal of those responsible for his ousting?

The military elites like Hindenburg and Ludendorff had not lost power and had traditionally supported the status quo under the Kaiser as opposed to a democratic alternative.

Fear of communism amongst the middle classes (and indeed the elites) would surely have driven them away from the volatility of a divided democracy towards a uniting conservative figure, particularly as the socialists and communists strengthened and the revolution in Russia ensued.

I would have thought also that this is when people most need a certain and stable outlook on the future at a time where there were significant mutinies and the spectre of defeat and revolution.

Thanks in advance.

I've found some sources that say that the difference is that homage is a greater responsibility and can only be given to one liege, but that's really very vague.

Can anyone here expand on what exactly made the two oaths different, and why somebody would swear fealty to somebody other than the person to whom they've sworn homage?

For place and period, Western Europe pre-Nineteenth Century, though relevant comment on other places is welcome.

There's stories of this church or that castle or this bridge containing, or having been erected upon, the grave of an unfortunate sacrificed to provide spiritual reinforcement to the edifice; London Bridge being, as far as I know, the 'classic' example.

The book that brought the topic to mind made reference to tales that various walls had been found to have skeletons beneath them, or that a hole knocked into a structure (at a point indicated by ancient folklore) revealed a hidden crypt, and that immuring sacrifices beneath structures was once a venerable and widespread custom; however, the book in question was an old one, citing other old books (Edward Tylor's Primitive Culture and Andrew Lang) and I'm wondering if more modern scholarship has turned anything up.

I don't doubt that it features in legend and folklore about the grisly heathenisms of olden-days, but was such a custom truly practiced?

And what are some good books about Channel Islands history in general? I'm asking this question specifically because in a book I'm reading set on Guernsey, the main character's mother is described as being "chapel" while is father is said to be "church" and I don't know what that means.

He managed time and time again to attract Iberians, Celts, Gauls, etc. to flock to his cause, but most reinforcements sent from Carthage were directed to their holdings in Iberia. Could he not have arranged to have more reinforcements himself, or someone from his political side in Carthage arrange for more African reinforcements sent to Italy?

It's a topic I don't remember in school possibly because the end of the revolution would mean death for the loyalists, but what really happened to them?

Did they just say, "eh" and become part of the new Republic or go to England, or...?

When the first tanks were being developed, what made the engineers decide to call them "tanks"?

[deleted]

Would the wedding be performed by a priest (kohen)? The community's elders? The couple's parents? Perhaps nobody would have officiated it and the couple would just publicly agree to be married?

What would the ceremony be like? I would guess the wedding ring is just Raphael projecting back wedding practices from his own era.

Also, who would a 16th century Italian painter think would have officiated the wedding of Mary? Does Raphael think he's painting a Jewish priest? A rabbi?

I know there are a lot of people thinking about this basic and interesting question, and a lot of intelligent theories.

I would like to introduce some of my thoughts on the subject, and hear other opinions as well.

First of all, as far as I understand, the gun did not outperform the bow in accuracy or range until the advent of rifling in the 19nth century.

It makes sense to me that effective bows have always been cheaper and easier to make than effective guns (I have made effective bows and arrows by hand, and they don't take many resources).

Arrows may be more expensive to produce than bullets, but arrows can and have been reused throughout all of history. People could scavenge battle zones to recollect arrows, and in my experience, a single arrow can easily survive a few thousand shots into a firm target.

I have heard it takes more training to become a good archer, than a good gunman... Is this really true or just an easy assumption?

That could be a reasonable assumption to a certain degree, but I think there is a lot of over-estimation about how much training archery requires. I have been shooting bows since I was twelve, but never did heavy training until I was 18, and I guarantee I was shooting apples at 20 yards after only a few weeks of heavy training.

I'm not sure if bows really take any more time to train with than guns, I think the real difference is that bows simply require more strength and dedication to master... to undergo the more physically challenging training (sore bodies and bloody fingers come to memory).

Maybe it wasn't about how long it took to train archers vs gunmen... Maybe it was just the physical requirements? Maybe guns are simply easier for those that aren't interested in the commitment of practicing a martial art and focusing on muscle training?

Finally, I have heard some interesting ideas about guns replacing bows because guns fit into more mobile battle tactics.

I'm not sure how much I understand that however... Archers don't have to be stationary or immobile. I know from experience and observation that archers can engage in mobile tactics, involving continual shooting on the run, and certainly while rushing from cover to cover. Archers could charge, shoot, and retreat, all in quick motions. I'm not currently convinced that guns have any particular advantages in mobility, especially considering guns are heavier than bows, and suffer from roughly the same difficulties on the run.

I'm sure I left out some good points, so fill me in!!! :)

Was it pigment availability? Were they just able to mass produce acrylics after the war?

I had always been taught in school that no civilization in the Americas had reached a bronze age or discovered metal tools at all before the arrival of Europeans. Which was supposedly one of the excuses given for Europeans to consider the natives "inferior". But is this common belief even true? If so, how did the great Civilizations such as the Aztec, Maya, and Inca develop such sophisticated architecture and gold smithing/jewellery work with only stone tools?

It strikes me that kings and rulers converted well before a nation's populace converted, though I'm really not sure how long that homogenization would take. Were pagans tolerated? Were they put to the sword? Were they incentivized to convert? I realize it likely varies by specific time and location.

I know very little about Eastern European history and, as I've been discovering, the Christianization of Europe during Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages. Any information on any of this, no matter how tangential, and any recommended reading would be much appreciated.

I'm not quite sure if this is considered beyond the scope of this subreddit, but I have asked so many people including ever math teacher and professor I've had since middle school and I still haven't gotten an answer. I know you can just say, "well it's the circumference divided by the diameter," but if math has taught me anything, it's that there are no perfect measurements or circles, especially not in the Renaissance era. I would be asking this on a math subreddit, but I have in the past to no luck and I figured that the history of pi still fits on a history subreddit. I'm sure someone here knows a lot about Archimedes and may be able to help me.

Is the other in the Albert hall?