The man was always controversial but I never realized how controversial until digging through some old threads about him. A lot of people revile him but I only read about him in a positive light. What judgement can we actually pass regarding his ability to command forces? Can he be called a good general? Or even one of the best? Or is he better remembered as a pompous egotist whose selfishness cost men their lives?

Was it effectively a public execution?

By "direct", I mean if the war atrocities (specifically 1937-45) were ever directly cited as a reason for bad relations between China and Japan.

From my understanding, it seems more of a cultural issue than a political one. Especially after 1949, when the Chinese government changed completely.

Automatics are much easier to drive for beginners and especially convenient in towns and cities. If anything, one would expect the situation to be reversed as long drives are more common in the US.

The simple answer people would give for not choosing automatic in the U.K. is "automatics are more expensive". What historical event made this not the case, or less relevant, in America?

I don't know if this is the place to ask, but I have two questions about vikings. Firstly, how accurate is the series vikings? Secondly, does anyone knows about any books about vikings, their culture and fighting style. Something like that. I'm sorry if I sounds foolish.Thank you

What attempts did the authorities in Moscow try to deescalate the situation? How did both SSRs acquire military equipment and men, were they defecting Soviet troops with ethnic loyalties?

I'm currently working on an assignment weighing up what made the Soviet Union powerful, but while I've got a points on the spread of communism and the soviet military, I'm having trouble finding major examples of the importance of espionage other than the work of atomic spies. Was this the only major Soviet operation and was it a major factor in the strength of the USSR?

Also how did the Romans incorporate ballistas and catapults in their strategy?

I have read that Hitler had plans to invade Switzerland and Ireland. If Nazi Germany had won, it seems likely to me (edit: that's just my uneducated opinion) that they would have at least imposed a great influence upon the neutral countries, encouraging the political landscape to become more fascist. So why did neutral powers (excluding fascists) not take up arms to make this less likely?

I don't imagine the government's officials to be very fluent on nuclear physics. Who and HOW convinced the top people that some fancy experiment (which I think it's safe to say they didn't understand a single word of) was worth the attempt?

In relating to algebra, The law of homogeneity was the notion that all terms in a given equation must be of the same degree.

• Many ancient Greek mathematicians stuck to this belief.
• Islamic Mathematician, Ibn Al-Baghdadi(990-1037?) did not
• Francoi Viete (1540-1603) stuck to the belief
• Rene Descartes (1596-1640) not so much

My question is: Was mathematicians' focus on this law an obstacle for the development of algebraic reasoning?

And if so, what ultimately kept the country together? because both the south and the north looked independent from one another as far as I understand.

It happened along the Western Front which is nearly 500 miles long and I know that not every area was peaceful. But for the places that were far apart and had truces were they unrelated incidents that happened by themselves or did it somehow spread from one place?

For a college class, I have to write a research paper on the Tunguska Event. I have to debunk the myth about a UFO causing the explosion.

Here's my project proposal that I sent my professor:

"Was the ‘Tunguska Event’ carried out by the USSR government, or was it the doing of extraterrestrial species?" I chose this topic because it sounds like the Tunguska Event was due to a nuclear weapon. I am unclear as to whether or not the Russian Empire intentionally dropped the weapon for the purpose of testing, or if it was an unintentional accident. The pseudoscientific opinion is that extraterrestrials are responsible for the explosion. I intend to figure out the most likely cause.

I am fascinated by the secrecy and harshness of the Russian government. My hypothesis is that the Russian empire was trying to create a nuclear weapon with early technology. The explosion took place in 1908. It would make sense that they wanted to create a nuclear weapon before the United States or any of the other world powers. The explosion occurred in a Siberian forest, a perfect place to test a weapon because there were no people living in that area. For research, I intend to study eye witness accounts of the explosion, newspaper articles from that time period, and nonfiction sources from people living in the Russian Empire in 1908. I will also try to gather information on early nuclear weapons, Russian defense mechanisms of World War I, and secret operations of the Russian Empire’s government.

So, historians of reddit, here are my questions for you :

1. What do you think is the actual cause of the Tunguska Event?

2. Could this be the testing of an early nuclear weapon?

3. Does any of this relate to World War I? It can't be a coincidence that the Great War started 6 years later.

[deleted]

I cant recall having seen any Mamluk or Moorish full plate armor, why didnt the islamic empires use them?

I am assuming mixed-race children in those days were all the product of rape, or is that wrong? From what I read, almost all the white ancestors of African-Americans were male, so I am wondering who these white ancestors were. Were they the wealthy men that owned African slaves, or were they from the other poorer white men that worked on plantations or as household staff?

Hey! I was wondering which books and authors are "must read" for those interested in world history, american history and English history for someone who is interested but isn't an academic?

When I was at school teachers talked a lot about Eric Hobsbawm his books "The age of...".

Books may be both about one specific event or overall history.

Thank you for your help!

I know that people in the 1700s drank alcohol more than water because alcohol was safer, but I'm wondering why people didn't realize that boiling water was safe? Why was alcohol the go to solution? Am I mistaken?