And why did it never—as I understand—take off the way its early promoters thought it would, being at a strategically important and commercially advantageous spot at the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi?

I’ve driven through a handful of times over the years and heard all the stories—about the flooding, the railroad bypassing the city, the corruption, the racism and resulting violence, etc. But I grew up in a Midwestern river city that’s had its fair share of similar challenges over the past couple of centuries, and I’ve visited many others, and I don’t know if I’ve ever been anywhere that feels as hollowed-out and bleak as Cairo.

Edit: A huge poor* majority would get one vote.

Thank you.

I am not sure if this is a trope that is shown in movies and other forms of media or whether this was actually something that occurred during the war.

But most of the time, in almost every WW2 story or film that I see, there are often soldiers shown either carrying cigarettes or actually smoking them regularly.

Why was this case, if this was actually true?

I remember watching some documentary where a couple of researchers decoded a page of the manuscript where the page listed the 12 months of the year and then from there they linked the Voynich alphabet to some archaic language except it was spelled phonetically. But when I search about it on Google, the results make it seem that the manuscript wasn't decoded at all. What's going on?

is the theory about Tartary true lol?

As far as I know Colombus expected to be able to circumnavigate the world and reach Asia because he (mistakenly) thought the globe was much smaller than most people (correctly) thought.

If America hadn't been there, therefore, he would have failed on his mission of reaching Asia's on its Eastern coast. But would he just have gone on until they had run out of food and water, or were they planning on coming back if they hadn't found Asia within a certain amount of time?

If they didn't, were the other captains and the crew aware of the risk involved on betting that the Earth was small enough to reach land before dying?

truly all I know is that ancient Athenians used the lot to select from a larger group of elected candidates. (I think?) expanded info on the athenian lot would also be interesting :)

What was his real name, what was he like, what did he do? How was he viewed? Especially interested in book recommendations if there’s a good secular biography of him.

Why is WW1 called World War despite the majority of conflicts happening in Europe. Its not like there were conflicts between major powers in Asia nor any other continents like WW2

Obviously there was the Yugoslav wars in the 90's where as the rest of Europe's last war ended in 1945 apart from the troubles in the U.K. However, the scale of ww2 compared to the Yugoslav wars is worlds apart even if it was longer ago and most people today haven't experienced it, whereas the Yugoslav wars are still fresh in people's minds. But even if we go back to 50s or 60s when ww2 was still very recent memory, it seems there wasn't a raging hatred or tension between neighbouring rivals like there is in the Balkans. Apart from the atrocities and expulsions of Germans from certain areas towards the end of the war. But after that it seems there wasn't blood lusting hatred between nations neither from the governments or people.

I know that at that time they had a new common enemy to worry about (USSR), but common enemies never stopped Balkan nations from distrust and hatred. Even when held together by Tito, the old rivalries immediately sprang back up with violence after he was gone. In the rest of Europe, they united even more after the Soviet threat was gone and focused on growth and economy.

Even without Milosevic, the hatred between the people was still there. It never really left. It was also still there before ww2 and even ww2 and even the ottoman period.

But the same could be said for the rest of Europe, in fact even more so. But the difference is after every devastating war throughout history, the rest of Europe seemed to put grievances under the rug and focus on important things, then start other devastating wars and rinse and repeat.

But the Balkans even when at peace and even now when most just want jobs and future prospects instead of war, there is still the same hatred that was there from medieval times country officials still see each other as rivals even when they're all (for the most part) trying to get in the EU/NATO/U.S sphere

​

My question is: seeing as Balkan nations already hated each other before the Yugoslav wars, already hated each other before ww2,ww1, the Balkan wars and even before they were independent nations, these are struggles all European people have gone through. Why was European rivalry mainly strategical/geopolitical/or simples selfish whereas Balkan rivalries were, on top of that, much more personal with genuine hatred?

Is the name really completely wrong? Or was it, by any definition, holy, Roman, or an empire?

If I'm reading it correctly, the USSR supplied 1,400 troops, who were slaughtered crossing the river.

The US and UK provided supplies and air support.

Why do people say it was left to die?

I wonder if people had the same sense of measured change that we seem to have about culture through decades. We can say things like "back in the 80s" or "in the early 2000s" and others can instantly tune-in to what we're saying. I feel like the rapid change in technology the world has experienced in the 20th/21st century deeply plays into this. For example, I can talk with my dad about how "back in the day" he could remember where to place the needle on a vinyl record to play a particular song he wanted to hear, whereas now I can just pick a song in a playlist.

Away from any large settlement, say, someone got shot with an arrow in their thigh, and for whatever season, said arrow was pulled out. Now there's a worsened entry wound, and a lot of blood is coming out of it (possibly meaning the femoral artery was cut). Would cauterizing the wound and nursing the burns be a viable means of treating it? If not, what would be a viable treatment?