Not talking of the Mayan, Aztec or Incans but more of the nations that comprised the US and Canada.

I feel this idea has come under scrutiny for me, after reading Peter Hart's very British '1918: A Very British Victory'.

In this book, Hart essentially *contends that the British Army and Commonwealth forces was the premier military force on the planet come the end of World War One. This was in terms of manpower (which the US perhaps surpassed them), experience (which the French and German armies had equal claim to), equipment (I have no idea), and logistical capability.

Is this a fair assessment? Would any French, German or US historians like to make the claim for this not being the case? I think it's a typically nationalistic statement, yet I think there is a fair argument for it that I would love to see explored.

*Edit: contends rather than complains

I have been watching (and rewatching) a lot of Sci-Fi of late to include BSG, Star Trek and the like. In BSG, the ending (good or bad) is made to basically show that humans evolved on two different planets in exactly the same manner, or near enough to allow inter breeding. Now, I know the possibility of such is next to 0, but I was wondering something about what it brought up.

If an alien species from long ago was to come to Earth and take away some of its inhabitants and place on other Earth-like worlds, how long ago would it have been possible for their evolution to most likely be similar enough that breeding itself would be possible.

My understanding is that there is a broad category of "humans" that once did or may have existed but I don't know that much about how closely related they really were. Would Homo Erectus inevitably evolve into something close enough to be genetically compatible, or be so if it remained the same? Or would it need to occur in very modern history instead to prevent much evolution from really occurring (last few thousand years for example).

Thank you for the help, hopefully my question isn't too convoluted to be answered.

for example just say a Gallic town was captured by Rome and all the civilians were sold into slavery would children be sold with there mothers, fathers, siblings etc. or would they be split up?

Edit: Thanks for great answers!

What percentage of the Soviet population lived behind the Ural mountains?

How many millions does this equal to?

From my perspective, as a modern Marxist-sympathizer, he overthrew the Tsarist regime which was a feudalist regime. A regime that wasn't very nice to the workers and wasn't helping the vast majority of Russians who were struggling at the time.

Lenin was honestly attempting to do what was best for the majority of people. He left the first world war, which was mindlessly sending off millions of people to die. He attempted to feed those who had been starving.

In order to do what he thought was right he had to fight a bloody civil war.

Towards the end of his life his health failed him, and Stalin succeeded him. I'm well on board for Stalin being a terrible person, however is it not true that Lenin was very critical of Stalin and Stalin's theories?

My history textbooks frame him as a war-monger and mass-murderer. Maybe less so the latter, but I can probably cite a few times he's called a war-monger in a few of my books, listed along-side people like Hitler, Mao and Stalin. How does a war-monger lead a country out of war? Didn't he aim for peace?

Hello! I'd like to know why in East Germany spying was so high and authorities were more oppressive in comparison with other Eastern Block states, like Hungary which also bordered a capitalist country, but was a lot more liberal? Thanks in advance!

I read Barefoot Gen, the manga autobiography based on the life of Keiji Nakazawa and his experiences after the bombing of Hiroshima.

One scene that particularly resonated with me was Nakazawa's father telling his family that the Japanese government is foolish for entering this war and they will lose, to the surprise of his family who gasp in horror saying "No you can't say that! what if someone hears you?" The father goes on to say something along the lines of "The only way for Japan to prosper and modernize is to learn to work together with China and our neighbors, not by invading them."

Were many other Japanese citizens privately against the war and Japan's invasion of China as this illustration showed?

After Edward VI died the throne passed to Henry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Did the English rules of succession favour a daughter over a male claimant such as a cousin or uncle and were there any major plots to find a male heir? Were these rules the same across Europe at the time?

Could a battleship be sunk in one shot, or would it take multiple?

Why do we translate tennou as emperor? There is no longer an empire of Japan nor does the emperor hold any political power.

Given the current Ukrainian crisis, I'd like to ask if there are.

I don't remember what documentary it was but it did get me interested if it really happened. It sounds rather unbelievable if you ask me.

as a bit of a follow up: what kind of cruelty's did happen during the crusades of Richard Lionheart

Or did he deliberately use them as convenient scapegoats? Or a mix of both?

Sparta has had a reputation of being a military power that was unmatched from training to their general attitude towards war. After the Peloponnesian War, Sparta saw to the demise of Athens temporarily before being defeated.

That being said, what signaled such a large decline in the military power of the Spartans? Was it a cultural change or simply an inability to adapt with the times?

Was the classified nature of Alan Turing's work for the UK during the Second World War at all to blame for the government's abysmal treatment of him? If people knew that he was part of the war effort would this have changed the use of persecution, chemical castration, etc.?

Economically, it seems like the current era has been marked by ever-increasing prices combined with relatively stagnant wages, and has been for as long as I've cared about economics (i.e. as long as I've been a legal adult). How long has this been a trend?

Bonus question: what parallels does this draw in history, and (ballpark) how long does this sort of thing usually last?

I keep hearing that it was common practice to write letters, etc. using the name of an authority figure in place of your own, and that this was not considered deceitful in the ANE.

Can anyone point me towards a good source on whether or not this is true? I'm concerned that this might be a myth perpetuated by apologists without any grounding in historical scholarship.

Thanks!