Lord Clark in the beautiful BBC television series Civilisation asserts that there were three 'leaps forward" (3000 BCE, 600 BCE and 1100 CE). Is this currently considered valid?

I was watching 'The Crown' on Netflix and decided to trace Queen Elizabeth's lineage back in time to William the Conqueror on Wikipedia, but once I got to Sophia of Hanover I read that she got the throne despite 50 some catholics ahead of her in line just because she was a protestant. The more I read about it the more confused I get... I just don't understand why protestantism was favoured so greatly that laws were written to prevent catholics from ruling, especially since I always believe england to be a very catholic place.

For example "The Sino-Japanese wars and "The Sino-Soviet border conflict" the word Sino is used to represent china, why is it not "The Chinese-Japanese wars" and how did it become this way?

How di the sack of Rome in 410 mark the collapse of the Roman empire? How crucial of a moment was this in history?

Hello, i'm working on an essay about how people are sometimes willing to give up personal freedoms in exchange for security during times of terrorist activity, similar to what happened in the U.S. post 911. I'm specifically writing about the German Autumn period which involved activity from the left wing terrorist group the Red Army Faction. If anyone has any information on if the states response to terrorism violated any German constitutional rights or that the German people traded some of their freedoms for security I would greatly appreciate it.

If i'm not mistaken, that area was throughout history controlled by either Russia, Lithuania and Poland. after the USSR they appeared, anyone care to explain to me why they are not just part of Lithuania or Russia.

Not sure if this is a dumb question or not but if a plane had to make a sharp turn, how did the pilot, co-pilot, gunner, etc. not fall out if the plane was tilted?

I know Pepin divided the kingdom between his two sons, as Germanic peoples were often wont to do. But what was the thought process when it came to this type of succession in the long term? Surely nobody expected the kingdom to keep dividing itself forever and remain stable.

Especially since it hasnt been "decrypted".

Would have been conceivable not to have a draft and still have a decently large army? Could you raise soldier pay until they didn't need a draft?

I've heard everything about this from "something famous Greeks claimed to increase their prestige" to "a widely used and accepted euphemism for illegitimate children" on the topic.

Modern Judeachristianity is clearly opposed to human sacrifice. However, the case is less clear for the ancient Hebrews. A few bits of text in the bible seems to point to an approval for human sacrifice among the early Hebrews. Most clear is 2 Samuel 21. Let me quote a few relevant bits:

21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.

21:13 And he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged.

21:14 And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land.

Now there's not necessarily archeological evidence for David existing as described in the bible and this specific event didn't necessarily happen. But the attitude of the early Hebrews might have been that human sacrifice was acceptable in some circumstances. Regardless, I don't feel the bible gives enough evidence to decide one way or another. It has been too heavily edited over years and is not necessarily reliable.

I was wondering is there any archeological evidence for human sacrifice among the early Hebrews or the Canaanites?

I'm talking about like how men hold their penises while urinating, not just releasing a stream while standing instead of while crouching.

As the title reads, did JFK ask NASA if it was a possibility and did they have the Saturn design in mind before JFK gave that famous speech?

Everything I'm finding about QSH's terracotta funeral work was written after its discovery. From 3000BCE to 1974, what did people know/think of the existence of his terracotta army? Was there a lore?

For a historical creation so well-known, it's surprising what little description there is of its existence before its discovery. Enlighten us!!

I've read or heard about the popularity of jazz in Britain in the interwar period and post-WW2 a little, but were R&B and the other styles popular or common and how did they make their way from the American Midwest across the Atlantic to Europe? Would I be able to walk into any record store in the UK and find R&B albums or turn on the radio and hear them or was it a niche genre that wound up catching their interest through pure happenstance? Did other American styles like country western and southern folk proliferate across the ocean too? Was African-American music more accepted amongst whites in the UK than in the US?an