Did rulers depend entirely on their Bannermen until this time? Did they still have and use Bannermen even after standing Armies became common?

It seems to me at least that the average person has this idea of the allies only winning by numbers while the Nazis had scientist 100s of years ahead of everyone else. The idea that tanks like the Sherman where somehow thin armored and awful death traps and that the Me 262 was revolutionary (despite the Meteor coming out withing months).

If anything from reading Zalogdas books and listening to Jonathan Parshall's conferences on production and then seeing examples of things such as British and U.S. IR systems being tested as early as 1942 on Nicolas Moran's forums. I'd seem the allies where overwhelmingly technologically superior and that the reason the Nazis took so few losses in comparison to the allies is because they fought a mainly defensive war by 1943 and still had a threatening army (even if it was worse).

[deleted]

Italy as supposed to be the "decisive weight" in both World Wars. Why did Italy have so many failed military campaigns compared to Nazi Germany?

I remember learning about the French Revolution and, during all the turmoil, when even the French king tried to escape. But before and after him, did ALL nobles try something like the king? Considering the Ancien Regime structure, I understood that most nobles were just part of the council for the king, in Versailles.

But were some nobles actually for the revolution? Perhaps, being generals or politicians during the brief Republican government, or some kind of official during the French Empire?

Basically from what I remember he belived that the actal trip was around 3800-4000 KMs and he basically made almost twice the distace just to land on cuba 6.700-7000 km and the actual distance to his destination is nearing 20000km (and that's just to Japan).

Now I can understand mistaking, but he basically assumed that the earth was 5 times smaller. From what I remember since ancient greece people managed to actually calculate aproximately how much the eart was big.

Was he simply Ignoring this information?

Was he "crazy" or self-illuded, that he wanted that much to make it that he lied to himself?

Also I remember almost a decade ago my History teacher alluded and implied that he lied to Queen Isabell about the real lenght of the trip in order to persuade her to get the funds, is this also a possiblity a bit?

As the title says.

(also summoning /u/vonadler)

I know Coke, the third part of that holy trinity, was around & popular by the early 20th century, but how popular were burgers & fries? Would someone have regularly eaten them? I remembered that I don't recall any WWII films showing people eating them, but was that due to wartime shortages?

[deleted]

From basic descriptions, I know that it is an addictive that was also considered medicinal (renaissance, late medieval period). And from quick internet searches, it's said that vitriolo is actually sulfuric acid but it terms of it being an addictive medicine that doesn't make any sense. Can anyone enlighten me?

[deleted]

I get that on the surface the disagreement was about images. However, I have a hard time understanding how an abstract theological debate about paintings could have torn society to pieces the way it did. Presumably there were underlying political, economic, and social forces in play. What was really going on?

[deleted]

Socialism has been around for awhile, as Debs ran for office 5 times actually generated some popularity. But what I was curious if both American and German Socialist parties were aligned in some way that their platforms were the same and if it extends or affect the way we look at Socialism today.

Was this seen more as a political or a religious sign?