Were there any centralized projects dedicated to collecting literary or scientific works?

.

The 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk forced the Russian SFSR to cede Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus. However, WW1 ended only 8 months later and the treaty was renounced in the 11th November Armstice, and germany formally accepted the treaty's nullification) in 1922. With the terms of Brest-Litovsk annulled, why weren't the territories ceded by Russia returned?

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

I was wondering if anyone can explain what this is referring to. Is it referring to British soldiers killing civilians during the early stages of the rebellion (eg, Boston Massacre) or is it specifically toward the conduct of British troops when quartered?

I just finished reading Thomas Packenham's Scramble for Africa and he talks a lot about the Boer Wars, but now I'm interested in how the Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natalia Republic etc actually functioned. Did they have diplomatic ties to European nations (apart from the British obviously)? Were any of them rivals? Were there plans for unification?

Also if anybody has any popular books on the matter I'd be open to reading those too!

Title says it all.

The British and French both had established colonies in the north so why did they never turn their attention south and colonise south america before the Spanish (or at least go to war with them for the colonies)?

[deleted]

As proven during the Battle of Bicocca, ranged fire was the best counter to the feared Swiss pikemen (but of course the Spanish had a heavy terrain advantage during this battle). During the beginning of the wars most cavalry were the heavy men at arms and gendarmes who used lances as their main weapon, but for example the Venetians also had Statioti cavalry which also used ranged weaponry and the French had the argoulets who also used range weaponry. I understand that light cavalry like those weren't favoured to go up to the pikemen since they could get flanked.

But why wasn't ranged infantry used in fortified positions protected by Landsknechts and pikemen, like at Bicocca, not more used, it seems like that would be the most effective against the Swiss pikemen.

Was there a lack of ranged infantry during the wars? I know that it was a transition period between bows and crossbows and gunpowder weapons, but crossbows were still used and IIRC they could still penetrate the heavy gendarme armour (so they could definetly shoot the Swiss pikemen too). But I think it is also not like military leaders were scepctical towards arquebuses I think, Machiavelli already wrote in 1520 that every man should now how to operate a firearm and praised the oposition for its use of it.

I have a couple theories and I would like someone who knows way more about it than I do to tell me if it is wrong or right:

Due to standing armies not being a thing yet, and due to the perceived effectiveness of the Swiss pikemen the rulers in Itlay and France preferred hiring Swiss pikemen or their immitators instead of other types of infantry, and it took the arquebus armed proto-standing army of the Spanish to get ranged infantry into the play. Military leaders were still sceptical of this tactic and only after it was proven to work at Bicocca did they want to recruit more arquebusiers among their infantry like the Spanish did.

Is this correct? It seems the most obvious answer but I haven't been able to find a definitive answer on the internet yet.

edit: just noticed that I should've written 'early' in the title

What was the benefit of this? Were there people who wanted death? Alternatively, what might have happened if these men were hanged?

There are many theories to who discovered America before Christopher Columbus, but they are just theories. Is there a confirmed entity that reached American soil before this man?