As to clarify is there any particular reason as to why the countries that originated from the Spanish and Portuguese colonies didn't develop quite as well as the colonies of other countries?

(Just another way to put it but why did the colonies of countries such as Spain and Portugal form LEDCs whereas those of England, France and the Netherlands form MEDCs?)

Even in many eastern Asian cultures there is a small trace of western culture but what has kept the middle east from being more modern and progressive. I understand there are some very modern and western like cities in the middle east but as a whole they have yet to seem to move on.

When we think of the soviet union we often think of poor farmers with barely enough to eat but was this really the case? if so what kept them from moving foward and having a pretty successful economy such as china today?

I have been listening to the new series on Hardcore History, about WW1. One thing that has struck me is how it doesn't seem like there's any significant opposition towards the war from the public. I mean, you have millions upon millions of soldiers getting killed every year, fighting in possibly (?) the worst conditions ever.

How did national leaders manage to convince the general populace that it was worth throwing more people into this meatgrinder? How did they manage to get so many men to sign up?

I understand that the question is basically "Why Feudalism?" - but. I understand how the system itself works. I don't understand how you, being a leader, agree to give some warrior great power on big territory, potentially creating a timebomb. And it happened in so many places so there must be something I'm missing. So what is it?

My professor was lecturing about Beowulf, and how it was one of the first works written in vernacular instead of Latin. Is this true? I decided to write about it for my research paper, but cannot find a source for that, and he can't seem to recall where it is he learned it.

Edit: What I'm getting at is, Beowulf aside, what were the views on literacy and education among common people in the era?

I'm aware of the plots to assassinate him and Operation Valkyrie, but I'm wondering more about whether the beginning of the war was apprehensive for some, and if anyone tried to stop it.

What of the pre-revolutions composers like Mussorgsky, Glinka and Rimsky-Korsakov was allowed? Considering that this was bourgeois art, often full of religious symbolism and allegory. Surely that was something that the Bolsheviks would be against. Were any operas banned? were performers and conductors censured?

Obviously, alcohol had its period of opposition. But since the end of prohibition, there's been to talk with any momentum about re-instating it. Alcohol is shown prominently in the media, available at most eateries, and underage drinking is widely accepted as normal.

Conversely, tobacco is banned from advertising. Many states ban smoking indoors outright. There is an enormous anti-smoking campaign expounding its negative health effects. And statistics show that smokers are less common now than in ages past.

What lead to this backlash against the tobacco industry, while other potentially unhealthy habits like fast food, soda, and alcohol have gone largely unchallenged?

Edit: I feel like I should clarify my question a little bit. I've been get a lot of answers about the etymological background of lieutenant. That's all fine and good, except my original question was were the pronunciation "leftenant" came from. And to go further, why did the Americans adopt or keep using "loo-tenant." I guess the answer to which depends on which pronunciation you think came first.

Not that I don't like the answers about where "lootenant" came from, but they're making it hard to sift through the other answers, which are far less numerous.

Thank-you.

Why did the US get basically all land East of the Mississippi when the Thirteen Colonies seemed to end at the Appalachian Mountains?

During the war George Custer became a Major General of the volunteers, then reverted back to his permanent rank of Captain (a loss of five ranks) after the war. How were officers selected for promotion within both the confederate and union forces? Was it more based on battlefield promotions due to deaths and injury?

This question isn't limited to the silk road btw, I've always been confused as to how the character based languages of Asia translated to latin based languages.

Are you guys top-down or bottom up historians, and why?

Many accounts of the battle of Zama seem to be a stalemate of infantry combat until Scipio's cavalry force attacked the Carthaginians in the rear. I know the Numidians were very skilled and expert horsemen. However, my understanding is their armament was very light; small horses, a handful of javelins, little to no armour. I don't understand how they were the pivotal factor in the battle, especially as by this time they would likely be tired and/or running out of ammunition. I feel as though they wouldn't have much effect on a larger mass of infantry.

I always wondered this but I've never been able to find a simple compare and contrast of the opposing Soviet and German arms.