What was the government of ancient egypt like?

Heard this comment from a professor. It seems that the Spanish Government in the Philippines answered to the Officials in Mexico, instead of answering directly to the King of Spain. Thus, in practice the relationship between Mexico and the Philippines a the time was more like a colonist and a colony instead of being fellow colonies. How strong an argument is this?

And by front line I don't necessarily mean fighting with the men and leading a charge, or even commanding the army in person (though they sure did all that). Just sitting in a city fortress close to the front line counts.

I'm guessing it's to ensure the loyalty of the army, but why is that necessary, when later government can sit comfortably in the capital and leave it to the generals, and contemporary China the emperor was sitting in Chang-an (not sure what the Persians were doing). And for some reason Japan went from the government sitting in Kyoto to the Daimyo/Shogun leading in person.

I came across this in Lewis Mumford's The City and i can't really understand it. Does anyone understand the meaning?

For Musselburgh was a Burgh, When Edinburgh was nane, And Musselburgh will be a Burgh, When Edinburgh's gane.

I have recently been studying about bog people, and have seen how bog people from the WWII era are found occasionally. I really doubt that I will ever have the opportunity to see one in person and view the preservation, so I was hoping that someone possibly had s photograph. WWII is a very interesting era to me, and I hope that someone will be able to help me here.

I will try to describe this as best as I can.

It goes like this, some people are lost in a forest and they smell some really tasty food. They are lured into some kind of hotel which looks vibrant and beautiful- despite everythng being dead around it. (Implying that this house sucks the life out of everything around it)

It is empty, except for one person who offers them delicious food (pork?). They eat the food and then it turns out that this is some kind of demon that kills them and cooks them, thus luring more people to this house? (So they basically ate other humans).

What is this chinese tale?

Obviously Europeans all have their own unique English accent country-by-country. But it's still more American sounding than British. Like if you talk to a Swiss person they don't drop their "r"s. I figure there must be some historical explanation related to pedagogy or post WWII European unity or something! Thanks!

Here's my view on this (btw I'm a very amateur military historian and i know most of my stuff reading books so i might make some mistakes):

Firstly waging war on the islands held by Japan causes lots of deaths. Amphibious landings are known to be costly to the invaders. So they're causing lots of deaths. Secondly waging war on islands is diminishing a major advantage the US has on Japan: armor. I know for a fact that the Japanese did not have much of an answer even to the American Sherman. On an island, armor is far less effective and thus they are losing a big tactical and strategic advantage they have.

Alternative: Attack japanese occupied territory in China. Doesn't even need an amphibious landing as the Chinese forces still occupied coastline. Once they're in China, the US army can use their stronger tanks and army and push back the Japanese and then attack their homeland using China or even Korea as a base.

Furthermore the US lost countless lives attacking Iwo Jima and Okinawa as they wanted to use them as a stepping stone to attack Japan. But once they liberate China (which i think would be easier than liberating the pacific) wouldn't China be even a better base of operations?

Why didn't the US attack Japan from China instead of the pacific? In my eyes I think this would end the war quicker and with fewer deaths on the American and Chinese part. I know that some of the islands were US territory but once the Japanese are defeated from China, wouldn't the liberation of those islands be an inevitable consequence? And this does not even account for the fact that the Chinese army was doing a mediocre job at resisting the Japanese already so the US Army would easily tip the balance. Whereas the Japanese Army was mostly uncontested in the Islands that it held.

In effect, did the Confederacy function as a single unit (one leader, unified laws, etc) or did it simply represent an informal cooperation between various tribes.

I looked at a map of Roman Provinces and Diocese after Diocletian's reforms and I was just wondering why the provinces and diocese had the shapes that they did. While some seem to follow rivers, others seem kind of arbitrary, so I was just wondering if anyone has an answer, like is it based on population or something else.

Which country was the first, when, how and all other informations are welcome.

Edit: I don't mean just the guns, the sabers, knives, axes and outfits too. How did war become standardised?

It seems that people don't learn from history very often. But perhaps when it really counts, as in when we wage war, people are better at learning from history. Is there any historical studies that prove we have progressively gotten better at waging war and learn from our mistakes or do we continue to screw up like we do in all other non-war efforts?

It seems that there is a dispute on his method of death.

There is a scene in the movie Unbroken where the Japanese attempt to convince the main character to collaborate and broadcast defeatist messages over the radio. He is offered good food, clothing and quarters in Tokyo as opposed to a prison camp. When he protests, the Japanese man he's talking to points to a table with several well groomed American servicemen, and says that they decided to cooperate and were rewarded.

Did this actually happen or is this a fictionalization of events? If it did happen, what happened to the Allied servicemen who collaborated with the Japanese after the war?