It was the Seljuk Turks who defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert around the late 11th century, close to where Armenia is. However, within 4 centuries, on 1453, to be precise, they become Ottomans by the time they conquer Constantinople.

What were the reasons that they changed their title? Was it because their ethnicity slowly changed from Central Asians into Middle Easterners, and their title also changed with this gradual transition?

I realize that this may be better suited for a social science subreddit, but I believe there are a significant number of historians who specialize in the history of crime.

Many horror films end with a killer being ultimately subdued and killed by somebody they were attempting to murder, but has this happened in real life? Are there cases of established killers dying at the hand of a potential victim? As far as I know, no high-profile killers have been active since 1995, so this question does not violate the 20-year-rule.

I would define a serial killer as any person who seeks to kill multiple people, in multiple instances or killing. I would include economically-driven robbers who kill, like the Harp brothers.

Would it be different if I were Black, Latino, mixed?

I was looking at the planets last night and figured if it were up to me, I would name the brightest planet Jupiter. Venus wasn't nearly as important as Jupiter as a god.

I'm assuming it would be very hot aboard the submarine, with very little luxuries.

And did they recognize it would mark the end of the Republic?

Hell does not seem to be given much importance or even mention in the Bible. In the Old Testament, there was the Hebrew concept of sheol, which simply referred to the common grave. In the New Testament, Jesus briefly mentions "gehenna," and makes a few references to some kind of destruction awaiting those who do not follow the correct path. Paul mentions hades and tartarus.

However, the modern vision of Hell-- fire and brimstone, eternal torment, the devil ruling-- is strikingly absent from the Bible. When did this vision of Hell become a part of Christianity?

I read a huge (700 page) book about Napoleon and it described how he would win battles by using his forces to charge directly into the enemy strongest point on the line in the battlefield. It also gave description of Napoleon going to the battlefield after the fighting was done and being interested in all the gore that he helped create.

There are those who say that the church in England was founded independently of Rome and has existed since the early middle ages. Others contend that the it only came into existence with the Act of Supremacy. The first theory smacks of revisionism (like the "Trail of Blood") to me. Is there any evidence for a distinct, independent "Church of England" (in terms of doctrine and authority) prior to Henry VIII's reign?

I just read the wikipedia article about the Leopard 1 and noticed one thing. The frontale armor is only 70mm thick angled at 30°. What was the reason for such a weak armor?

I have recently begun reading Charles C. Mann's book 1493. In the book, he makes the point that Chinese demand for silver caused, in part, a global trade network to develop between Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Africa. I understood many of his arguments after accepting that China wanted large quantities of silver, but I did not understand why China wanted silver in the first place. Mann also said that China did not want to trade much with Europe before the European discovery and extraction of American silver, simply because Europe did not have anything China wanted before that point. He briefly stated that China needed a source of money or currency, but I am not sure that this single cause accounts for the seemingly infinite demand, considering American silver was abundant.

I don't post here often, so I apologize if I am not following the accepted conventions of the subreddit. I looked through the rules briefly and thought my post fit well here.

How is it that despite an Allied Control Comission monitoring the German Army, and a strict enforcement of the other terms of Versailles, Germany was still able to rearm without intervention by a member of the allies?

I was told one of the reasons why Napolean was so successful was because large armies were able to be maintained with easily grown potatoes, and you can see how potatoes are basically the staple food of a lot of western dishes. Over in the east, China and India are booming with population, they don't have many things in common, but they do have brown rice in a lot of their dishes. If I was a European king, big army = big wins

Brown rice is cheap, abundant, nutrient-packed, able to be grown in Europe, and was known long before, people today use it as a way of bulking for cheap, why did the west wait until someone discovered the benefits of the potato?

By large-scale, I don't necessarily mean by today's standards. I mean large-scale within whatever society was apposite to the particular example. So, if, for example, Incas raised Tigers for eating (an obvious joke example) on a relatively widespread basis, this would be "large-scale" for my purposes.

I have a difficult time finding information on this conflict that does not appear biased. It seems much more difficult to see who was at fault compared to a conflict like WWII (I know history is not black & white, but it's hard to argue against the allies being, as a whole, preferable to the axis. The same cannot be said about the Yugoslav conflict). Much of the information seems to be anti-Serb, but other sources point towards international actors or Croats as the antagonists. I understand the history of conflict in the region goes back millennia, but I am primarily looking at the modern history leading up to the war.

The war ended in 1995 but began earlier than that, so I hope this does not violate the 20 yr rule.

I read a couple of years ago that Napoleanic era tirailleurs (skirmishers) would do this instead of using the ramrod. I don't have a direct quote but I may have read it in Alessandro Barbero's The Battle: A History of Waterloo.

As a follow-up question, how well could a musket withstand this sort of abuse? Was this method approved by their commanders or done on the sly by soldiers anxious to speed up the reloading process?