For example in the Caribbean or Africa?

Isn't technology linear? Also, why is the west so dominant when compared to other once great civilizations?

I understand that the Roman Republic used it as an execution site fro murderers and other crimes.

According to wiki, there are three basic themes to manifest destiny:

*The special virtues of the American people and their institutions

*America's mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America

*An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty

Did other countries have any similar period?

I see a lot of people on the internet claim there were 90 to 100 natives living in the U.S. pre-colonization, but I'm pretty sure that number is what the estimated population of North and South America was at the time, correct? Does anyone have any idea roughly what the number was inside the actual United States?

Were there any particular army/nation that had an exceptional amount in their ranks comparative to others?

Also, side question: how common were exotic war machines such as, for example, Da Vinci's "horse drawn war tank" ?

It seems more than most former presidents, opinions about Reagan and his time in office different the most. Some conservatives act like he was the best thing that ever happened to American, and some liberals act like he was the worst thing. Historically, what did he do to cause such a rift in opinion about him?

How did the germans view themselves during 1930? and how did other countries view Germany at the same time? Following question: How did that opinion change in 1939?

What if building pyramids was a purpose to itself? We know just how much effort it took for their society to organize construction of pyramids, even to the point of every single part and class of society directly or indirectly being involved in it for decades or longer, resources being obtained and spared for their construction, people put to hard and intense work, trade that developed from it and so on.

Now, I understand they did have their purposes and many more theories about other purposes do exists, I don't deny it or claim they are obsolete big rocks, but just how enormous they are and how much effort it took makes me wonder: was this the way how Egyptians in fact organized and controlled their society? By ordering construction of these huge monuments all across the land, bigger and smaller, in a lot of communities. With purpose to put people to work in a lot of different fields, to make living possible, to make civilizational growth possible and ultimately, so that rulling elites would stay on top controlling people with religion, while sharing precious knowledge of mathematics, architecture and writing only within their circles. It would actually be a genius way to make everything work and life there possible. They're even shaped like well, pyramids, where every level knows its place and everything works like charm as long as it remains so. Almost like a perfect ant colony.

Of course, to make your society work and sustain itself you need a goal, bigger one than bare survival. In such a society, setting this goal of building a monument that will require just about anyone's effort is ideal to have a prosperous, even content society.

Hi, I am very interested in Otto Von Bismarck after I learnt about him a year ago in my history class. However, I am trying to find sources or even other peoples ideas as to how important Bismarck was in the unification of Germany. Currently, through research, I would suggest that Otto Von Bismarck acted as a catalyst that sped up a movement already present as he capitalized on existing German culture (especially language) in order to create a unified state, however it can be said that this would have happened regardless. A counterargument can be said that although a German identity was present and a state may have eventually been established, the integrity of this state would come into question as other existing powers such as Austria and France would have posed a threat. Please feel free to comment or even just provide sources/ links for further reading

[deleted]

[deleted]

Before Eisenhower arrived Churchill was largely able to decide strategy and the direction of the war himself while working with the War Cabinet and the Imperial General Staff. What was the relationship with Eisenhower and Churchill like?

I don't know too much about it and I was wondering, was it a full-on social class or was it like "combined" with another social class? Like where there equestrian plebs? Equestrian patricians? Or was it completely on its own?