I'm referring to Southern Siberia of course, as opposed to the harsher Northern Territory. How did the mongols pull this off with such ease- or was it more difficult than I've been led to believe?

I'm curious as to how the transition from Latin to Greek for official purposes took place. Was it a slow evolution or could individuals perceive a sudden shift in the Eastern Roman Empire?

This question reflects particularly on race based politics. Andrew Jackson for example was a democrat, and also a horrible racist. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and against slavery. The Klu Klux Klan was founded by democrats.

What caused these people to switch their ideological standpoints? Nowadays people with racist views often vote Republican while 100 years ago they would probably have voted Democrat.

(P.S. I don't want to imply all Republicans are racist or vice-versa.)

I'm in the midst of creating a prop for a film: a concerto written by a composer in Paris in 1799, and found in contemporary times. As much as possible, I'd like to replicate what this sheet music might have looked like.

What kind of paper did they use? Was there a particular kind of quill and/or ink? Was there anything that would be specific among the composers of that time and place, in terms of how they wrote and/or created their work?

To clarify, the piece is written, and our special f/x department can age the pages in a pretty realistic manner. But before applying the aging process, I'd like to craft written sheet music that is at least somewhat realistic.

Thank you for any thoughts or advice!

Both Extra Credits and wikipedia kind of agree that Suleiman had him killed basically because he declared himself Sultan in the Ottoman/Saffavid war and because of Roxelana's influence.

It seems obvious that during ancient Rome mathematics would have been almost essential, I mean look at the colosseum or the pantheon structures like that would have required considerable mathematical planning but, how was the written using Roman numerals?

I know that a certain part of Gorbachev's actions were driven by pressure from the Soviet Unions newly aquired free speech that he had given them, and also driven by his personal desire to reform the country. How much of Gorbachev's reforms were his own wish, and what was his ideal view of the Soviet Union when he took office?

What did either side gain by letting the war continue for 7 hours?

And did the german people agree with that?

I am usually skeptical of narratives that put the narrator in a good light, so I presume I was given a very generous retelling of what has come to be known as "the Viking age" when I am from where the vikings originated. In short, we were told of the history in such a manner, that the settling, trading and raiding Vikings were the main contributor to England's success (Via Normandy to English throne), and that of the various Russian countries (grounded a lot in the Rus in Russia, Belarus, Ruthenia referring to Vikings) and traded everywhere from the Asia Minor to the southern coast of Spain and briefly settling in North America. In fact, they were given the same historical importance as the Greek city-states and the Roman empire, which is a level where my bullshit detector goes a little off.

This is something of a methodological question, but I always find it difficult to think about the internal beliefs of folks from long ago. For the purposes of this question, let's just confine ourselves to the Roman Empire. It seems to me that we have to rely on two main sources: what little writings we have and the physical remains of the people in question.

The writings we have, while no doubt extremely useful, are also going to be from the upper echelons of society. This bias means that they often aren't terribly concerned with the subjective experience of the common people. It also means that the views they express -- about religion or whatever else -- don't really strike me as representative in any meaningful sense.

The physical finds do a bit better, but even here I worry. For instance, there are a lot of Church's in Venice today, but simply counting them would give a false impression of the dominance of Christianity. They are preserved as cultural monuments and tourist attractions as well as for spiritual reasons. The upshot being that I am hesitant to infer from the mere presence and prominence of temples any conclusions about religiosity of the common people.

So I guess my question is how exactly we go about drawing conclusions about the religiosity of people from long ago.

Hello guys,

Tried to ask this question earlier but it was apparently too 'opinion-y', so I'll try again. I've been reading in depth about the Mark I (and upwards) tank as well as the machine guns of World War I. I was wondering if any of you could provide insights into what their capabilities were, what their weaknesses were and any examples of their triumphs or pitfalls.

I'd really appreciate any answers that could help me along, especially the odd trinkets of information that could go well into comparing the two weapons of war.

Thanks!