The scene occurs fairly early in the movie, and it introduces the sword expert character. Basically, there are two samurai, one boastful, one quiet, and the boastful one challenges the expert to a duel with wooden swords. After the duel, the boastful one claims it was a tie, but the expert says that he won. The two duel again, this time with real swords. When they cross swords, the two samurai stand for several seconds after they connect, and then the boastful one falls dead.

This scene of two swordsmen running at each other, connecting, and then standing in dramatic poses for a few seconds before the loser falls has been copied hundreds of times in popular culture both in Japan and worldwide. I think I've seen it in two different anime this week alone. Was this scene an original idea from Kurosawa, or did it come from another Japanese movie, manga, or Hollywood?

There was trade with China, during the cross-bows hey day in the 100 years war, I would have thought new technology would have been welcomed.

For the sake of argument, lets also consider castration, circumcision, and body piercings separate things.

So most of us have probably heard this claim. Is there actually any truth to it, as in, if the Germans had not gone trough Belgium, the UK would have remained on the sidelines of the conflict?

In Ireland, the Easter Rising is viewed as a major historic event.

How was it seen in the USA? I understand that World War 1 was underway but surely there were opinions to be had?

I see many different views on these, and wanted to ask someplace where I know I get good answers.

Please forgive my English, English is not my first language.

Tony Judt, in his 2005 book Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, states that the final straw which 'forced' Slovenia to declare their independence from Yugoslavia was when, in December 1990, the Serbian leadership in Belgrade, seized, without authorization, 50% of the entire drawing rights of the Yugoslav federation to cover back pay and bonuses for state employees (p. 673).

Slovenia, which had only 8% of Yugoslavia's population and which provided roughly 25% of the federal budget, no longer felt that their national interests were served by following centralized fiscal decisions from Belgrade and thereby decided to embark on a journey towards independence.

Would you consider this account to be accurate? Were there other factors which pushed Slovenia to declare its independence from Yugoslavia? Did the Slovenian political leadership simply use this act by the Serbs as a justification for independence? And finally, why did the Serbs commit to such a reckless course of action, did Milosevic simply believe that the other republics would not break away from Yugoslavia?

Not saying this was a good idea by any means, but I would have imagined that Crusaders, having ridden all the way from Europe to free Jerusalem from Muslim rule, would take the first opportunity to remove all traces of that rule, starting with the Dome of the Rock.

Likewise for the Muslim conquerors and the Christian sites.. Though perhaps their view of Jesus as a prophet and Abraham being a common father son with the Jews prevented that. I did hear that Omar refused to step inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, saying future generations would take it as an invite to demolish the church, do he prayed outside and a mosque note stands where he prayed.

Again demolition would have been terrible, just curious as to the mindset at the time.

I am no expert in Constitutional law, but I find it really confusing that modern Americans refer to an outline for a country that was created 250+ years ago. Has any group felt this way through history, and how were their attempts met by the general public/contemporary agencies?

EDIT: Cause of the Rules

I've been reading a lot recently about the early bronze age cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and later. One thing that is apparent is that cannabis use was widespread and probably recreational at a very early date. It also seems as though the Greeks knew about its existence from fairly early on as well.

But other than occasional medical use, I can't find any evidence that cannabis was smoked recreationally in ancient Rome. Am I correct that it wasn't? Or do we simply not know?

If my initial assumption is correct, are there any reasonable guesses as to why it wasn't? The Greeks and Romans traded extensively with Crimea and points along the Black Sea coast, where they certainly would have come into regular contact with people who grew and smoked cannabis. In a society where trade in medicinals and narcotics was commercially important (e.g., silphium, opium), why wasn't this product exported when other drugs were, or grown locally? Or was it?

Did a network of South to North American trade exist, or did indigenous American trade restrict itself to smaller spheres (continent or smaller). What were some of the largest chains of trade? Did any nations assign a currency for trading with other groups, or did it mostly happen through barter? I'd appreciate any info you might have related to the topic.

I ve been reading into tank and anti tank warfare in World War 2 lately, and to my understanding tanks weren't the best defense weapon against enemy tanks but landmines and AT guns were. For example, at battle of Kursk Soviet tanks were held as reserves then unleashed only after German tanks had to cross gigantic minefields and been withered down by AT tanks.

Do I get it right?

I was reading about "prize rules" and the start of "no warning" submarine warfare on merchant shipping in the first world war. However the sources didn't necessarily agree on how significant arming the vessels was in the German decision to stop warning merchant ships before attacking.