It's very frustrating to open a question with a ton of comments, only to find that they have all been deleted. Perhaps an answered button would help determine if there actually is an answer in the thread?

I understand that the Russians surprised the Central Powers with a far quicker mobilization. But the Germans quickly managed to turn things around. A hundred years ago they had destroyed one Russian Army and are in the process of badly beating another one. Meanwhile the Austrians are doing extremely badly against the Russians. The Russians are managing to push 160 km into Hungary and the KuK military is suffering huge casualties.

The comments I read about the poor performance of the KuK troops usually talk about the whole war. Which includes things like production/industrial issues and low moral of the multi-ethnic troops. But I'm specifically concerned about 1914 and the initial phase of the war, when production shouldn't be as important as in the long run and at least the core of the army should consist of professional troops.

So: Why Did Austria-Hungary Do So Badly Against Russia in 1914?

Lets say in 800 AD, 1090 AD, 1230 AD, and 1400 AD.

By this I mean, would China have considered the government fallen in 487 or would they have accepted merchants claims to be from Rome (aka the Byzantine in this case) Empire? Or would they have heard tales of the Holy Roman and Byzantine Empires both declaring themself to be Rome? Or even the Ottomans?

TL;DR: how familiar would China have been about the situation in Europe in the Middle Ages?

Excluding Morocco.

Every time I see it mentioned in a history book, it's as if it had as much influence as governmental organizations. How did it seem to just die off?

Bonus points for e-book formats. I'm especially interested in the Mayans, Inca and Toltecs but I'd like to know at least a little about all the different civilizations we're aware of.

I'd prefer examples from Western Europe, 10th to 16th century.

Can we use history to make predictions - however how imprecise - about the future? I'm thinking about Asimov's psychohistory or something similar.

I know we eat more sugar than they did but did they have any oral hygiene really?

I heard that it took generations to build the Great Wall and that at points in history there were a million soldiers stationed there. Why did they not use all this manpower to conquer the mongols, wouldn't this have saved them more resources?

I hear many people speak highly of him and his administration and would like to know the reasons behind it. They also mention his excellent foreign policy that I know nothing about but would like to learn.

With the notable exception of cricket, India, a country of 1.2 billion, seems to have had little to no major impact on the sporting world stage. India has won a combined total of 23 medals at the Olympics, for example, in its entire history -- the worst medal-count-to-population ratio of any nation that has won at least two medals -- and this medal count was bolstered only by the last two Olympics, in which, only recently, India won about 2/5ths of its entire medal count.

This is in stark contrast to India's neighbor and fellow billion+ populated country, China, which is one of the world's top medal winners at the Olympics and World Championships in a variety of events, and has produced at least one major star in the NBA, and a variety of other top athletes in tennis, volleyball, track, and other sports.

What has led to India's poor performance in the sporting world? Is the interest simply not there? Has it been a government policy to de-prioritize sports? Is there not much money to be made in athletics? Or is there something else at play?

Did it transform into a name used today or just fall out of use?