What differed in the organisation, structure, doctrine and influence of the Orthodox church that prevented it from being the victim of large, game-changing reform movements like those of Lutheranism and Calvinism seen in the Catholic church? Was it largely a matter of geo-politics, i.e. the Orthodox church prevailing in, more-or-less, just Russia, as opposed to Catholicism being spread across hundreds-upon-hundreds of culturally different states all over Europe?

With megacities becoming more a more prevalent, such as NYC, Tokyo, Jakarta, Seoul, Karachi, etc. why are only a few containing huge skyscrapers? Tokyo doean't have skyscrapers like NYC does, neither does a host of other megacities. So why? They're all densely packed, if not more so than those that do have skyscrapers. I just find it strange.

EDIT: Also, what was his personal life like throughout his life?

If Schleiffen had worked, France was knocked out and then Russia defeated in another quick war like the Franco-Prussian war, what exactly was the goal? What was Germany planing to do with these countries? Demand an indemnity, grab a couple colonies, and everything goes right back to normal? Put up a pro-German monarchy in France and Russia?

Was it considered a momentous event? Were people indifferent? Was the reaction uniform or divided? Thanks!

I'm not sure if this is the sub to ask it in

I doubt they would have, but I'm still curious.

So I was wondering: let's say you are born a poor white yeoman farmer in a Southern slave state, circa 1830-60. What are the chance that you or your children will become plantation owners or otherwise wealthy men?

I saw this in wikipedia but I can't find it, Is it in english?

I just recently finished his book and found a lot of parts of the book seemed to make more sense than much of the traditional explanations regarding Byzantine political thought (especially in explaining the frequency of revolts) but I am still rather new to Byzantine History and am wondering about the opinions of some of those more familiar with the field. I also haven't been able to find any academic reviews through my university's search function, but it is a fairly new book still.

What are some criticisms some people might have with the scholarship in the book? Are there any major gaps or flaws I might have missed not being as familiar with the events as others? What, if anything yet, are other academics saying about it?

Thanks a lot for your time.

Wife asked the question last night. We theorized, but I thought someone here could provide a proper explanation.

I'm totally in the dark on how popular Holmes books were in their day or if they got famous after years and years of a cult following. So, If there was a period when the books became their most popular, did people try to solve crimes? Did the police have to shoo people away from the murder scenes? Cosplay? Deluded people try to start a business in private detective services? I hope this is a specific enough question.

Thank you for your time.

Not so much as in gangs like Crips and Bloods, but on the level of Irish and Italians mobs.