or had they been totally supplant by guns at that point?

When reading about early civilizations, you often come upon the distinction between 'cultures' which seem to be the domain of archaeologists and 'states' which seem to be the domain of historians. Books often talk about 'state formation' as if there is some clear boundary between state and non-state entities but it isn't clear to me at all that this is the case. I can't pinpoint any clear qualitative division. Is there some arbitrary level of population density, or agricultural technology, or writing system sophistication, or authority centralization at which a culture suddenly becomes a state?

Was it merely a bubble he created to last long enough until he invaded Poland, or would it have been sustainable for a post-war Germany, assuming everything went to plan in Barbarossa? If not, did the Nazis have some sort of plan laid out for after they acquired lebensraum?

With Germany losing even more territory, infact being split in 4, being made to pay more reparations, and having to reorient its economy, how come no party exploited those restrictions to their benefit like after the Treaty of Versailles?

This is a trivia Extra credit question given by my genetics professor: Consider the following 21 towns/cities. San Diego, Oceanside, San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, Lompoc, San Luis Obispo, San Miguel, Jolon/San Antonio, Soledad, Carmel, San Juan Bautista, Santa Cruz, San Jose, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Rafael, and Solano.

a. What do they have in common in California history? All have missions founded by Junipero Serra.

b. What do the four bold locations have further in common?

Watching Top Gear, they had a cool segment where they drove early cars to see the development of automotive controls we have today (accelerator-brake-clutch as pedals from right to left, gearshift by hand). I was hoping to get a more in-depth and technical historical perspective on this, beyond seeing how old cars work. How were early cars controlled? Why were they laid out this way? Is there any particular reason the modern layout was favored over early alternate designs? Thanks!

I read through the sidebar FAQs on the issue, and the main answer seems to be that Truman recognized Israel to keep it away from the USSR. There's not a lot about US government involvement in the lead-up to Israel's creation.

For Why: Is it really as simple as keeping a new country from the USSR? Was it just by that point obvious that there would be a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine, and the US wanted it for itself? Did the US not recognize how incredibly harmful the decision would be to relations with Arab nations?

For How: How did we get from (1) the dire warnings about consequences of creating a Jewish state in the area described in the King-Crane report to (2) "might as well"? What US government actions over that time period contributed to or detracted from the Zionist cause?

I don't get how it was politically seen in the US as the right thing to do, and I think I must be missing some US involvement or perspective on Zionism pre-1946.

I'd also appreciate recommended reading on the subject of late stone age peoples - religion, sex, daily life, war, that sort of thing. I want to write a short story set in the period, but I can't until I've immersed myself in the setting much more thoroughly.

They're only two letters apart, why are they pronounced so differently?

Often in school I was told that the Roman's got all their good ideas from the greeks. Obviously this isn't true (THE MANIPLE SYSTEM). However I heard that Tacitus said the Germanic tribes worshiped Mercury. Which suggest a link between the Romans and Germanic tribes. One thing that the germanic tribes, roman civilisation and greek cities share is the Indo-Eurasian language group. Did the Romans inherit their mythology from the proto-indo-eurasians, separate from the Greeks.

The only reasons that I could find any evidence on were that the Allies wanted access to the oil fields, were the leaders of Iran unwilling to trade with the Allies? I dont understand why diverting parts of the military to attack another nation would be worth it given the other fronts open at the time.

I'm interested to find out what churches used to call the faithful to services before the widespread manufacture of bronze church bells.

I can imagine something less costly and time-consuming to manufacture would have been used, but what exactly was used?

Did some use horns modeled after the ram's horn rabbis use to call people to synagogues in the Jewish tradition, or did they always use something completely different?

Edit: Sorry for being vague, I'm asking specifically about church services from Late Antiquity (when Christianity became more widespread, ca. 4th/5th century) to the Late Middle Ages (the earliest time there were church bells manufactured widely, ca. 13th or 14th century).

I'm playing some Rome Total War and the artillery machines of that era always fascinate me, so i wanted to know a bit more about how good or bad they actually were.
And as a small extra, do you know of any books that talk about roman siege equipment, weapons and tactics?

I find it very fascinating that Cesare Borgia, Leonardo da Vinci and Niccollo Machiavelli, three men who epitomize different aspects of the Italian Renaissance, all interacted with each other at some point. My question is how well did these men know each other and what kind of relationships would they have had?

In a game known as Rome Total War, the player may utilize cavalry for hammer and anvil attacks. When a player charges into an enemy battle-line from the rear, more often than not, the line holds strong, requiring the player to repeatedly cycle in and out, hitting them with numerous rear charges in order to cause the army to route.

How close to reality is this concept?

edit: To clarify, this is related to the second installment of the series: Rome Total War II.

edit2: Thank you everyone who contributed to answering this question! I feel I've gotten all the information I need. :)

After the disbanding of the Roman Empire, it is often said that people in the Middle ages wondered how did the Romans build structures that "stood up by themselves". How did nearly all Roman inventions become such as concrete, bridges and archways, working road systems, civil law all vanish? Wasn't the Roman system meant to "Romanize" the conquered areas? If so, how did everything crumble so quickly?