While with the same land mass as China, we have more than a dozen countries in Europe. And in comparison to Japan, the UK has several kingdoms. (with Russia, I think it's because most of its eastern parts were sparsely populated and with India, I don't know, maybe because of the brits?)

There were the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Ainu people in Japan. And China had several kingdoms. Why then, are they so homogenous now (compare to Europe)?

I mean, as I understand it, prior to WWI you had all sorts of thriving German-American and Irish-American and so forth communities, and now you mostly have a bunch of people running around like "I'm German!" and "I'm Irish!" without even knowing about the cultures, much less speaking the languages or having actual traditions. What kinds of things happened to mostly get rid of these kinds of communities? (I know they're not completely gone by the way, but they seem to be drastically reduced.)

While royals (and especially monarchs) are usually apolitical, a number have historically expressed right wing views. Edward VIII famously held Nazi sympathies, while Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and a Prince of the United Kingdom, became a bona fide Nazi. Have any royals (including estranged ones) ever been drawn to left wing, in particular socialist, politics? If so, what was the public reaction?

Like for example, was their wood construction all mortise and tenon, or did they have nails and adhesives? What about attaching varying materials like metal?

Thanks!

In Attila total war: the last roman, some of the 'barbarian' kingdoms have units/titles reminiscent of roman ones (ex. milites comitatenses, comes), with the ostrogothic kingdom having the most roman military references. I'm wondering how accurate this is and what these armies would have really looked like.

I can understand attempts at decolonization, but I don't understand why they'd use a Nigerian kingdom that was located some hundred(s) (of) miles to the east. Was there cultural ties between Dahomey and Benin?

After watching a sketch about it, I began wondering why the state of New South Wales is called that. Wikipedia seems to say that there is no explanation for why this name was decided upon. Is this actually the case? If not, why was the name decided on?

I'm sure there are many factors that play into someone becoming a highly regarded historical figure, such as: whether they are alive or not, how revolutionary the impact was that they left on society, and how many people were affected by the impact the person brought into society. But to be regarded as a historical figure, however, how long (or short) could that take? Mark Zuckerberg introducing Facebook to the world is something that is definitely revolutionary, but would his additions to society even give him the title of a historical figure?

[deleted]

Recently I've been reading up on the second world war on this subreddit and in general and I had a few questions concerning the Axis cooperation.

From what I've read about the Axis alliance in comparison to the Allies, it seems that there was hardly any cooperation between Japan and Nazi Germany and I had a few questions about this.

1. To what extent did they cooperate with each other?

2. Why was this cooperation so limited? It seems to me that if Japan and Nazi Germany had cooperated more closely, they would've fared better during the war. Are there any political or military reasons why they didn't opt for a closer cooperation?

What I mean by this is, for example, aligning their overal strategy. If they had focused their forces on the USSR they could've linked up with each other over the Russian territory and would've stood more of a chance of defeating the USSR.

I understand that Japan was focused on resources but it seems to me that the Russian oil fields would've also been an answer to Japan's resource problem?

Furthermore, when looking at the Allies, there's the Lend-Lease program which was incredibly important yet there was no such cooperation between the Axis forces to my knowledge?

Other areas could be the sharing of resources, technology, military knowledge etc.

In general, it just seems to me that the Axis alliance never reached its full potential whereas if they would've cooperated more with each other such as the Allies did, they would've had more chance of actually winning the war.

I hope this question hasn't been asked too many times. I looked through the FAQ but didn't really find any answers concerning why no closer cooperation.

Thanks in advance!

I have been looking all over Google, but I can not find the names of the generals of the Nationalist Army. Does anyone know them? I'm actually related to one of them it'll be cool to know which one.

If I went back to ancient Rome and tried to bed myself a nice Roman lady, what would I expect? What's known about the sexual positions that they used, the conventions about moaning, and all that? What about the shaving of pubic hair? Would they have positions and a way of going about it that would be recognised today, or would it be completely foreign? How common were things like anal and oral? What about the church; did that have an effect on the Dos and Don'ts of the bedroom?

My girlfriend and I were watching a film where the term "black magic" was used and we began to wonder what the roots of that term are. Is it meant to be synonymous with "dark" or does it stem from race-related connotations? For example: Voodoo being called "black" magic because of its use by Africans and Haitians and subsequently being delegitimized by Christians.

Specifically, I wonder if 17th-19th c. white Christians referred to the traditional religious practices of slaves and black laborers as "black magic" and the term just stuck or if "black" genuinely is just meant to be synonymous with dark in this context.

If so, what happened to these women and did it change the culture in the North and South? Did having a higher percent of the population lay any ground for eventual suffrage?

Apologies if my premise is faulty!

Would they dismiss it as nonsense?

Was 'divine right' a concept in Ancient Greece - did it bolster his legitimacy?