I understand there were a series of extremely advanced fortresses surrounding Liege, commanded by the Belgian commander Leman, and until the Krupp and Skoda artillery could arrive, these fortresses were impenetrable and Liege by extension was impregnable, also thanks to the "gap divisions" of Belgians between the fortresses.

However, John Keegan says in The First World War that Erich Luddendorff was able to take command of a few German soldiers, occupy a small Belgian village and use that to enter Liege and capture the citadel, but I'm having trouble visualizing this.

Where was this village? Why was it not defended as heavily? How did Luddendorff use it to enter Liege? What exactly did that do to help the German attack?

Thank you.

I am interested in learning about the development of law surrounding firearms in the United States. Can anyone recommend some good books on the subject?

I have read the sidebar and "Popular Questions" tab regarding the subject, however there does not seem to be any overarching literature recommendations included (although there are fascinating answers regarding specific times and events).

I look forward to your responses!

Hello,

I'm currently staying in Berlin and have been learning a bit about its history. Due to bombings during the war, very few of the buildings survived into the present time. I was hoping to find some pictures of what it looked like back then to compare it to what I see now. Things such as major streets, or more elevated the views and streets would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I'm reading about early Greek rhetoric (Greek Rhetoric Before Aristolte by Richard Enos) and it appears, to me, that aoidoi were singers of Greek epic poems and that they were probably responsible for "composing" the Iliad and the Odyssey. Rhapsodes appear to be very similar. The term rhapsode was not used in early writings, however; but Plato uses the term in his Ion.

From what I understand, Hahn and Strassman carried out the experiment that revealed barium after uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Using this information, Meitner and Frisch worked out a theoretical model that explained how the uranium nucleus broke apart.

Is there any particular reason only Hahn got the prize, when the contributions from the others seem equally important?

Have there always been movements, composed mainly of women, that were against feminist movement of the time?

For example: were there movements against women's suffrage, working outside the home, women driving in KSA, etc.

Was there ever a time they were officially freed? Did they just slip away in the chaos? Become serfs? How long did the Byzantines have slavery?

Watching videos of weaponry online and seeing that weapons such as the M9 were devised around 1975 and the AK-47 around the 1950s has led me to think that most small arms weaponry seems to be several decades old at the minimum. Is this the norm and has weapons science gone beyond it but just isnt applicable to small arms yet?

I was fascinated by Ibn Batuta's descriptions of other cultures as he traveled, anecdotal though they were.

What's the earliest known systematic attempt at describing a foreign culture?

The last passenger pigeon, Martha, died at the Cincinnati Zoo on Sept 1, 1914. I know she'd been a popular attraction, but had that been more of a sideshow spectacle, or did people really understand the gravity of such a widespread bird being brought to extinction in just a few decades? And did her death contribute to any popular support for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the same way that media coverage of environmental issues today often helps drum up support for eco-friendly legislation?

Let's say I wanted to go to Australia or an African colony. Could I just up and go or would I need special documents?

Related question: Did it change over time, and if so, do we know why?

I'm listening to the really excellent The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan. When he discussed the endorsement and eventual adoption of Christianity by Constantine, he outlines a number of factors that make Constantine's endorsement of Christianity make sense. For instance, it was politically expedent to align himself with an already powerful minority during the civil wars he fought against anti-Christian opponents, Christianity was a unifying element for a political regime that had been tending towards unification for centuries, and of course he may have had the good old superstitious desire to be on the right side of the right god.

What does not make any sense at all is why in the world he allowed the Church to maintain and entrench a heirarchy of power that was parallel to and seperate from the power of the state. The old Roman state religion, if not literally an arm of the government, overlapped neatly with government power, with the Pontifex Maximus being a member of some prominent family, and the cult of the deified emperor being the next best thing to literally worshipping the sitting emperor as a god. There was no tension between church and state because wherever these were not actually the same people- as in Julius Caesar- they were people from the same families and both of these overlapping hierarchies promoted the ideas that supporting the state was supporting the gods and that the favor of the gods could be seen in the strength of the state.

With Christianity however, this will change, and in a few hundred years, the divergence between the state and religious heirarchies of power will be so great that they can actually make war upon each other. Of course, this wasn't Constantine's intent, but how could he not have seen the seeds of the eventual Pope vs Kings conflicts that will characterize later European history? When he endorsed Christianity, why did he not also wholly coopt it and, for instance, give himself the right to appoint all bishops and to interperate scripture in the manner of the Sybeline Oracles? Every other action of his seems characterized by rutheless practicality intended to cement his own power. Why allow it to wander away?

edit: Thank you for your responses.

From my understanding, the Germans made a lot of mistakes and miscalculations that eventually led to their defeat. However, Germany, with all of its weaknesses managed to take over France and were heavily suppressing the British. This was before the bombing of Pearl Harbor and USA entry into WWII. IIRC the USA was already proving support to the Allies through the Land-Lease act. After their formal entry, they contributed vast amounts of resources and manpower and collaborated with the Allies on military strategies. So far, it looks like the Germans lost mainly because the USA got involved. How important of a reason was the entry of the USA in contributing to Germany's defeat? Would Germany have won WWII if the USA never got involved? How significant are the other factors like the strength of Stalin's Red Army, the resistance movements going on in Nazi occupied territories or the weaknesses of Germany itself?

(I hope I provided enough information, I don't want this to sound like a 'what if..' question)