Could someone explain to me why didnt the knights of the order revolt/rebel against Albert who not only secularized the order but abandoned the catholicism. How exactly did they take the decision? Or was the order not as devout as one might expect?

Did countries like France, Germany or the United Kingdom keep troops in their respective African or Asian colonies to maintain their rule over the "Indigenous populations" when the home from was in dire need of reinforcement? Also, was there any significant rebellions/push for independence in the colonized country as large scale operations from their overlord was unlikely? Finally if no such thing happened how did the colonial power prevented/contained it?

(From the time inbetween)

Melee combat is largely asymmetrical: You hold the shield on your left side and presumably rely on your own weapon to protect the right hand side (vice versa for left handers). However basically all shields have been symmetric - circles, ovals, squares, rectangles and the classic flat top pointy bottom European medieval shield. The only one I can see that isn't is a jousting shield - but that's essentially symmetric with a cutout to help hold the lance.

Why did the Ottoman military perform so poorly in the 1st Balkan War? While the Ottoman military wasn't equipped and trained up to the standards of the European great powers, neither were its Balkan opponents. The Ottoman military decisively defeated the Serbians in 1876, and did the same to Greece in 1893. Despite losing the Russo-Turkish War, the Ottoman military preformed relatively well despite the disparity of forces. In World War 1 the Ottomans managed to hold their own against enemies who frequently outnumbered them, and who were usually better trained, supplied, and equipped, while blockaded and fighting on three or four fronts.

However in the 1st Balkan War, the Ottoman military was decisively defeated, nearly losing Istanbul, in a few months. What happened in that war?

Looking for a couple good autobiographies or books dealing with his foreign and domestic policies. Teddy is one of my childhood history class heros and I want to learn about him through more mature eyes. Needless to say accuracy is valued over nostalgia. This is a purely personal curiosity not an academic research project so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Background information: In my freshman year of college several years ago I took an Early Medieval Europe class (I know this is after the Roman Empire fell, just keep reading) and the one thing I still remember the most from this class was a random comment our professor made on Nero.

Somehow the class got to talking about how new discoviers could change our entire understanding of different events we were learning about.

Our professor (Ph.d from Oxford) then says "Yes, an example of this can be seen with Emperor Nero and the Great Fire of Rome. It is now being thought after the fire which burned a lot of the parts of Rome where the Christians lived, Nero then let all these Christians squat and live in the temples of the Roman gods. Because of this the historians, writers, and sculptures of Nero's time started hated on him after his reign because of this".

I've always found this statement extremely interesting but I've never found anything else backing the professor up. So my question is there any truth to this or was my professor BSing to help support a point?

Thanks in advance.

TL;DR Professor once said Nero's hate comes from the writers and sculptures of the time hating Nero for letting the Christians live in their pagan god's temples, any support for this?

Edit: spelling

I have personally always seen the "break", as it were, with the continued legacy of the ERE happening in 1204, with the 4th crusades sack of Constantinope, as the chaos of that event broke many of the fragile traditions and legacies the empire had up until then continued as part of its Roman Hertiage, and the empire that came afterwards a Byzantine one, not a Roman one. What arguments would historians in the field make against this idea, or in support of it?

EDIT: yes, it should be date

Traveling around East Asia, a small pet peeve of mine is how high currency denominations are in countries like Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Is there a historical reason why bigger denominations seem to be so favored, even if at best it's a non-issue but at worst a very mild inconvenience? Why even include the possibility for any mild inconvenience and not just work with smaller denominations? Thanks!

When was the earliest point in time we had a fairly accurate (to today's standard) map of the world?

It seems like many early machines were less carefully designed as much as they were put together, and modern machines like a plane are substantially more complex than early planes. However design software and systems have also improved as well as an increase in trained engineers and specialized design project teams. So how long would say an engine (Steam, diesel or other) take to design in say 1800 1850 1900 1950 or 1995?