The opening tomb in Raiders had: light sensors, complicated gear systems, pressure triggers arrows, etc.

How did they learn each other's language?

It seems that chariots were used across most of the ancient world for about 2,000 years, before falling out of favor. Wikipedia states "Chariots had lost their military importance by the 1st century AD," but the article doesn't really say why (unless I missed it).

Was there some technological or tactical innovation that made them obsolete? Maybe an economic reason?

What would be the safest front to be at and in which side.

As in why does it refer to the continent not the country

I'd like to learn about the philosophy of history. What makes a historian's account of a past event credible? Any good introductory texts on this matter?

There are a lot of reasons, clearly. I would really like to hear which AskHistorians thinks are the most important. (It's not THAT cold!..Right?)

Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader has been a great treat to me, but I've become wary of the author's apologism, especially upon having heard about his failures that he doesn't like mentioning, especially his supposed antagonism towards everyone. Anyway, I really liked reading about the finer points of WW2 strategy and tactics, especially tank warfare, and I wonder if there's a book which contrasts Guderian's memoirs, is based on them, or offers a similarly good, intricate experience, that I could get into. I did check the masterlist and the titles are great or I anticipate them heavily, but have been also looking for something more specialized.

As we all know, the Southerners and the Northerners disagreed about whether the US constitution permitted secession.

Why wasn't the constitution clear on this point? Was it because it was too difficult to get consensus on that point or was it simply not discussed?

"Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

If so why? In other words what determines territorial sovereignty? Maps show the Sahara under Moroccan control since at least Medieval Times under the Almohad and Almoravid dynasties (although it is ironically more the other way around as these powerful dynasties originated from the south). I know this isn't a popular subject but I hope someone would at least be able to answer what determines legitimate sovereignty.

Considering the Serbs hadn't even replied to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum yet, I'm still a little confused as to why Russia began mobilising its troops at such an early stage.

Was it mostly Europeans? Or even mostly Italics? Did any citizen of Rome of Middle Eastern or North African heritage ever rise to a high enough level of prominence to gain a seat in the Senate?