Basically, I'm curious as to how such a large section of land with such a rich history came to be under a single government. What has historically stopped China from breaking into a multitude of smaller nations? I understand this somewhere like Canada, whose history only goes back a few hundred years, but it just doesn't make sense with China.

To qualify my words...

By least chaotic, I mean: it's leaders didn't represent an opposite extreme form of governance to throw the country into. And: there wasn't much of a power vacuum that allowed for lengthy instability or violence.

Thinking about it, there must be a notable difference between revolutionary cessations and revolutionary coups.

Chinatowns are like landmarks now. Almost every country outside of China has one, but there are no towns for other countries with large amounts of migrants. Why is this?

If there were no preparations for Laika's return, or video streaming, how did the USSR verify that an organism could survive launch and orbit?

Thank you very much, I love this subreddit.

France and Germany negotiated terms of armistice June 22, 1940. France formed a new government, was allowed to maintain its own civil service and police and keep some of it's army intact. The French army fought allied forces in North Africa and the Levant as a German ally. While the term were harsh the Germans did not require "unconditional surrender," but allowed Vichy France to continue as a political entity. What motivated the US, Brits, Soviets and Chinese to give the French victor nation status and a permanent seat on the UN security council? Why were Norway, Holland, Denmark not given similar status?

I'm learning Japanese now and it's odd that there's hiragana, katakana and kanji for a single language.

Germany, Constance - As a result of the outbreak of plague, Jews were persecuted by terrible pogroms, they were killed or driven out the cities. They came back during the end of the 14th century though. Shortly after their return, Jews were again persecuted and left the city of Constance in 1448.

Interestingly, i got my hands on a source that contains eight documents concerned with a lawsuit of a Jew (Jacob) against an aristocrat (Heinrich von Roggwil) that takes place in 1451! - in a time where, according to other sources, there were no Jews around.

The source is in Middle High German, there's a Pfandbrief (mortgage bond) from 1439, five court decisions from 1451 which have seals, a vidimus (copy), and some other documents. The lawsuit itself is missing, as is Heinrich's appellation to the bishop. Several copies of the documents are mentioned in the text. - Clearly, only the documents which were received by Jacob the Jew still exist. ((The documents can be found in the City archives of Stein am Rhein, Switzerland, copies are in the State archives of Schaffhausen, Switzerland.))

The content is as follows:

• 1439 Manz von Roggwil and Conrad Zigellin borrow 24 rhenish Gulden from Jacob the Jew who lives in Constance. The interest is 2 Pfennig per week and the debt has to be paid by the heirs of the debtor. The money has to be paid back in seven weeks.

• However, the money isn't paid back. By the end of the year 1450, the Jew files a lawsuit against Heinrich von Roggwil, the heir of Manz von Roggwil. Heinrich refuses to pay, by sending a document that confirms an oath that Manz hasn't been part of the loan (from before Manz died) to the bishop.

• Anyway, there's a vidimus (copy) of the original contract, which proves that Manz indeed was part of the deal in 1439. Again, Heinrich objects. The bishop confirms that the Jew can assert his claim in secular court.

• Then, there's a huge document describing the events in court. Heinrich's lawyer presents a new document which proves that Conrad Zigellin, the other borrower already paid the debt in the form of a silver cup worth 26 rhenisch Gulden.

• Jacob the Jew however had never gotten that cup and didn't know a thing about it. So he was allowed to swear a Jewish oath that this was the truth - and that oath was accepted in court!! (which is remarkable, considering that this happened shortly after a pogrom in which all Jews were killed)

• After that a few court decisions follow, describing the exact amount of the debt+interest which Heinrich has to pay.

Now - what I want to do is provide an analysis of the Jewish-Christian relations in that time - pretty much only using this source. I'm not a specialist in medieval history but i'd like to do something like a semantic analysis of the phrases describing the jew. (whenever he's mentioned, it says "the modest Jew", "the honest Jew" and sorts)

Has anyone of you ever done that or do you know any literature on how to analyse court documents and especially "court language" and those typical "empty phrases"? ANY ADVICE is highly appreciated!!!!

X-post: I posted this on /r/AskHistory, didn't get any answers though.

If someone's interested, I can upload pictures of the actual source and parts of the transcription, it hasn't been published yet though.

EDIT/UPDATE: I'm currently working on the topic and will post results as soon as possible. Thanks for your help, /u/AshkenazeeYankee! :)

As a child growing up in St. John's, Newfoundland, I remember Soviet fishermen going on shopping excursions while their vessels were in port. (Used Lada automobiles - which their disgruntled Canadian owners were happy to be rid of - were particularly popular.)

More recently, I read about people in Hungary being allowed to take short trips to Austria not long before the Berlin Wall came down, and Hungarians would come back in cars loaded down with appliances and other consumer goods.

How would the average person in a Communist country get Western money? Were relatives in the West allowed to send it to them? Was it earned through black-market dealings with tourists?

Some half-cooked answers I've found are that, by the time they had interest in the region (oil in the 1920's, moreso in the 30's) coloniazation was frowned upon. but the King Saud at the time was the king of a desert, with nothing in the way of an army by and stretch of the imagination?

So instead of royalties and generally caring about what the Saudi's thought, why didn't COSAC/ARAMCO/USA/UK just take power, it would have made things simpler, no?

I've been reading a lot of Saudi and the birth of their country, and noone has approached the subject.

I hope this is the right place for this.

Last year(2014) I made 4k in O/T. Sure the government got more taxes but I made more money also.

I think I've also heard this about getting raises.

A few parts to this question:

• Were colonists mostly sympathetic to the Roundheads?
• Did any Roundheads take refuge in America after the restoration of the monarchy? If so, did any go on to become notable citizens?
• What was the attitude of the American Founding Fathers to Cromwell's Commonwealth?

I remember hearing a story when I was younger about a white slave abolitionist in the United States in the 19th Century (I assume). I totally forget his name and unfortunately most of the details surrounding him. What I remember is that he is lauded for helping slaves escape, and what stands out in memory most of all to me is that he requested he be buried in a slave cemetery after his death.

I apologize for being so vague, and I'm sure there were many people fitting this description, but I thought I'd ask here as my last effort to find out.

Basically, what's his name?

Such as the cultures, fighting style etc.

After the Napoleons defeat there occurred several congresses and treaties defining the new Europe and trying to create a long-lasting peace, one of the main goals was an Equilibrium between the great European powers. Into consideration were taken: Prussia, Austria, France, Great Britain and Russia, however the diplomats and heads of this idea did not seem to consider the Ottoman Empire as one of those big powers, despite them controlling quite a big amount of Land within the European continent. Why was that? Did they lack military strength? was it due to the different Religions? Were they not Interested?