So I have been thinking about this question for a long time and this seems like the right subreddit(If it is not, please tell me and I'll delete it).

By this question I don't mean if they smiled in the same way, but rather the sounds they maybe made or the set of movements.

This was just a question I was pondering, I hope someone can shed some light on the subject

What I mean by this is primarily the following: Upon the discovery of (usable) electricity, and means to use it correctly, engineering in general has advanced a lot. Warfare has radically changed since ancient times, and people are constantly stringing up new theories in regards to physics, biology, chemistry, etc. that completely change the way we see those fields. In mathematics, however, I have the feeling that it hasn't changed much. We still use the basic principles laid out by Greek and Roman philosophers, and others are merely 'added on' to the existing ones. How true or false is this?

To me it seems fairly obvious that Christianity was able to flourishelp throughout Europe in the first millennia A.D. largely because of the abibility/decision of the church to adapt local religious traditions for their own purposes. Basee on my knowedge of medieval church law I feel like there must be some sort of theological basis/source/precedent people/clergy used to justify such incorporation.....

Am I wrong? If not what precedent or example was most often cited?

Say, Queen A who only speaks German wants to marry King B who only speaks Spanish. How would they get around the language barrier? Did courts of the past have a translator or did monarchs usually just marry those who spoke the same language as they did? Or were monarchs of the past usually tutored to know several different languages and so eliminated the need for a translator?

I recently read in The Economist that in 1900 London was the largest city in the world, "with 6.5 million inhabitants and streets thronged with omnibuses, hackney cabs and horse-drwan carriages."

However, I have also always heard that Tokyo has been the largest city in the world ever since about the ~1860s. (It is still the largest urban centre today, is it not?)

So, historically, what have been the largest urban agglomerations of humanity? Was the booming London or the bustling Tokyo biggest in 1900? Or does it really not matter? :-)

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

First he goes into exile on the island of Elba. Why was he allowed to do that? Then he escapes, and takes back the power for 100 days. Then he loses again and is confined at the island of Saint Helena. Why wasn't he executed?

Near the end of the book they mention they destroyed a water pipe that led into Tenochtitlan to dehydrate the Aztecs into surrendering.

What surprised me was that Aztecs had pipes. What were they made of? Where did the water come from? What did they look like? Was it like an aqueduct?

And what's further, what kind of sanitation did Tenochtitlan have in the first place? I know about the Chinampas, but I've never heard about the actual living conditions in the Mexican empire.

I'm newly fascinated by the tumultuous period between the Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement and the Battle of Hastings. What remains by way of primary sources from that time?

Like they're coming up with all this stuff about atomism and whatever (which I'm reading about now and it's fascinating!) and doing all this experiments and hypothesising and postulating all the time, how did they get money to live? And did these men of science live, like kings, celebrities or peasants?

I know that this may or may not exactly belong on this thread but I was wondering if there was any good scholarly books to read up on along the lines of King Arthur.

How would a small town (< 50K inhabitants) have been attacked if defended in WW2? It would still have houses and some commercial and industrial buildings, so would defenders and attackers have used the same methods as larger-scale urban warfare?

Were they also used as builders and smiths to maintain Sparta or did they enjoy higher privileges than the common folk and peasants?

I'm curious :

• Why USSR insisted on obtaining it
• Why the Allies let USSR have it
• Why/How it stays with the Russian Federation unlike the other baltic nations.

Most of Europe was conquered by the nazis in ww2 and none of the land had revolts was it because the nazis had such a large army that it scared away rebels or was Europe not occupied long enough to gain too much revolutionary support

I always thought that the Soviets would have done so since they suffered a lot and desired to bring terror and destruction to the Germans. As well, the Russians had a large amount of aircraft and resources at their disposal(Including the Tupolev strategic bombers). Was it because the Soviets did not have any strategic bombing doctrine or training?

My wife and I were discussing the Native Americans and I had a hard time finding things that they had contributed to the world. Can anyone help?

I know this has probably been asked before but I'm watching a doc on my phone and I've tried to search reddit on said phone to no avail. Watching the doc, the Germans were spread so thin, did he actually think he could win? Why even try for Russia? So many questions! If there's a link to a previous post it would be greatly appreciated:)