So far everything I know about Russian history seems really negative. They had the invasion of the Mongols, they were cut off from the rest of the West and still had feudalism for longer than a lot of other places in Europe, they had a bunch of shitty Tzars, and once they did overthrow the monarchy they got communism. The only positive thing I can think of off the top of my head is Peter the Great. So my questions are, why is Russia so unlucky, and what are some positive events in Russian history?

The US has Puerto Rico and other territories that do not share borders or a similar culture. So technically we should be an empire. I imagine other Western countries would fit this mold as well, perhaps even moreso by having monarchs who while not head of state, should be befitting of the name.

Why are there no more emperors in name? Is this a political correctness issue?

Prussia played the leading role in the unification of Germany, the Prussian ruling family provided the Kaiser of Imperial Germany, many of the leading figures in Imperial Germany were from Prussia and owned massive estates in Prussia. With this kind of influence and history one would think that massive amounts of historical and cultural capital were lost during World War II and it seems to me that very little of it is talked about or preserved. I was very curious if there was a sense of loss in Germany over not just the territory but the history and culture that came with the regions that were lost.

One thing that really sparked my interest was looking at google maps images of the countryside in old East Prussia and towns look very German and there are tons of abandoned estates, churches and run down towns that clearly were populated by Germans not even 75 years ago.

Were any tests done, either back then or in the modern day?

Also, is it possible that the user of the pistols could influence the rate of misfires? For instance, if loading the pistol improperly could cause a misfire, then we might reasonably expect both pistols to be loaded improperly, and a double misfire might be more likely.

Was it even possible? What would drive a person to become a mercenary rather than a bandit or something else?

Could some random person be trained/equipped by a mercenary group? Would they invest that kind of time and resources into someone like that?

I am quite confused about this. At the same time, I think the concept of a state called German is pretty a young thing. So at that time, maybe it was supposed to refer to the certain nation?

In curious as to the progression from the first flight to commercialization of flight. Did the Wright brothers start a flying company? Did they sell their plans for the first plane? How did we get from the first flight to the biplanes of WWI?

Is there any lost city which is under water due to sea level increase?

In portrayals of kings across cultures, it seems that they can always be found sitting on their throne, or occasionally leading a an army into battle. How realistic are these portrayals?

Did other countries in 17th and 18th Century Europe declare bankruptcy? What were the negative effects and why was the French monarchy scared of them? It seems like it would have been so much easier to balance the budget without all that debt interest, even if it did cause some short term economic pain.

[deleted]

Hi guys.

In the film saving private ryan near the start when the troops breach the defences, some germans surrender in a trench and start shouting pleads. However, the American toys with them and end up shooting in cold blood. I was wondering how accurate this was, and if it happened very often.

Thanks!

[deleted]

I always here that Jimmy Carter was the only president to get through his entire term without firing a single shot, which sounds incredibly impressive and peaceful. Then I also hear a lot about the criticism from Noam Chomsky that every president post WW2 would be a war criminal if tried. How does Jimmy Carter fit into this?

This question stems from a discussion in Dan Carlin's Old School Toughness (2010) podcast. Past historians like Will Durant and Hans Delbrück, though obviously and necessarily exhibiting their own bias, did not shy away from discussions of more philosophical concepts like societal virtues, human courage and bravery, etc. Should historians be able to make arguments to the public like "Roman society declined because luxury diminished the old republican virtues" (just an example), or is that no longer appropriate because it is inherently unscientific? Thank you for your time.

I looked through the FAQ and could not find the answer on the origin of pre-1948 palestinians. Many different nations have owned the region of Palestine so undoubtedly some Palestinians have not lived in Palestine for all of recorded history. I would love to know where the palestinians ancestors came from and about some of the mass immigrations in the history of Palestine.