It was fighting both world wars against most of its closest trading partners... How did their economy continue to function?

Furthermore, why did the wars take so long to end with the amount of foes they were facing?

I have to admit that the way rifle and musket shooters would walk up to each and just shoot, without protection, cover or anything is difficult for me to understand. It defies all logic doesn't it? Wasn't it better to just charge or go back to bows and arrows for quicker shooting? If I remember my history correctly, the French took quite a beating at Crécy due to the slow Lombard crossbow shooters.

The whole way of doing battle at the end of the 18th, and the beginning of the 19th century, make absolutely no sense to me. It also made me reconsider how much convincing a soldier in WWI really needed to get out of the trench and get shot. After all, it's not that much different from how war was fought 100 years ago no?

EDIT: Grammar.

What major technological advancements have effected the taste, smell and even bottling of wine? How similar in taste would ancient wine be compared with the vast amount of wines we have today? Thanks!

1. What are differences between posthumous name and temple name?

2. What are Chinese Emperors posthumous/temple names origins? In other words: What are they mean?

I have several questions regarding the ethnicity/heritage of the Normans...

1. How many Danes/Norse actually settled in Rouen and it's surrounding areas? And were they primarily the raiders that had accompanied Rollo on his raid in 911?
2. How quickly did the original settlers intermarry with the local population? Did most attempt to move their families from either Denmark or Norway to Normandy?
3. Regarding the relationships between the Gallo-Romans and the Scandinavians, it was more common to see a Scandinavian husband and a Gallo-Roman wife, correct? And did most Norman nobles trace their ancestry paternally?
4. Did the Normans feel any sort of kinship with the Danes/Norse/Vikings? I had read that Richard the Good had several Viking accomplices.
5. How long did the Scandinavian languages survive in Normandy? Did the Aristocracy make an attempt to learn Old Norse?
6. Did the original settlers have any cultural impact on the Gallo-Romans what so ever? In other words, were there aspects of Norman life that were distinctly Scandinavian?
7. How did neighboring states, and the general Frankish populace feel about the Normans throughout their reign? Were they really viewed as barbaric pirates, or were they respected in some circles?
8. Is it accurate to refer to some Normans as 'Vikings'? The term Vikingr, means to go raiding, and Viking typically denotes a Scandinavian who's gone raiding. Is there an actual difference between say, the actions of Ragnar Lothbrok for example, and William Iron Arm? Technically speaking, they were both ethnic Scandinavians and they were both raiders.
9. Did the Normans feel distinct among other Frankish/Gallo-Roman peoples? In other words, they were French first and foremost, but were they proud of their 'Viking' ancestry at all?
10. Were there several waves of Danish and Norse settlement following the original settlement of Normandy? In other words, was it common to see Danes colonize Normandy long after 911 AD? Was there constant communication between the two 'countries' (for a lack of a better word)?
11. How quickly did the Siculo-Normans and the Normans of the south assimilate into Italian society? Did they intermarry with the Greeks, Lombards and Muslims? And do you know of any definitive works on Norman controlled Sicily? Thanks

I'm a resident doc and my undergrad background was in classical studies, but I haven't really made an effort to study medical history. Where should I begin? I've read Ostler's Aequanimitas but after that, when I search for medical literature it's all contemporary drivel from Sanjay Gupta, Farmer and Gawande.

Any suggestions?

I've read about what happens to the dead, and I can easily imagine rebuilding cities, but what happens to all the ground vehicles, guns, downed aircraft, and any other battle detritus after something like D-Day or Kursk or the Gulf War?

Put another way, where does all the damaged and destroyed stuff go? Are there official protocols or rules for dealing with battle detritus? Has military or government reactions to debris changed over time (e.g., was there a change from the American Civil War vs. WWII in how that stuff was handled other than the technological differences)?

Just got thinking about it. As far as I recall, the Spaniars brought a lot of gold and silver from Central and South America. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that if something like that happened today (a relatively sudden entry of large amounts of precious metals to the market) the economy would be greatly affected, even if it isn't so tied to gold and silver these days.

Edit: Averyville. Spell check broke it up and I didn't notice.

Its now abandoned (as a town, its now part of Lake Placid) and I've been trying to locate its cemetery. All I have is a rough map drawn by someone who lives near where the town was.

From what I read, China was generally inaccessible to foreigners from the 1950s to mid 1970s, so it somewhat resembles the North Korea of today. Why did China shut down its tourist industry and closed off access to people outside of its borders? It doesn't seem like a feasible thing to do because it would be expensive and difficult to monitor all illegal border crossing, especially on the western frontiers.

How closed off was China in the years following 1949 and was it the right policy for its economic development?

I was reading a (fictional) novel that was ostensibly based on some research on the influence of Shakespeare in the old west.

I was wondering, was there any evidence (e.g. playbills etc) of Shakespearean plays being performed for miners out west? How lucrative would these performances have been? Would the audiences have known the plays/understood them? Would actors have performed works by others from that era (Marlowe etc) or more contemporary playwrights?

Sorry for that barrage of questions, and thanks in advance.

I'd greatly appreciate any literature sources to peruse, as I'm very interested in this subject, but couldn’t seem to find much info.

I was told to pose this question here as I initially went for ELI5.

So i finally decided to get off my arse and actually try and understand the mess which is going on in the Middle East, however, one major question did rear it's head and I'm hoping people can give me a hand. So as I understand it (VERY limited) Sunni Muslims believe that the Caliph should be passed to the one who has the most experience and/or who is elected to rule and this is why Abu-bakr was appointed Caliph. Shia Islam states that only God can appoint the Caliph and as Muhammad was chosen, so was his line, and therefore the Caliph should be succeeded to Ali, his closest relative. So the ELI5 part comes in here, how exactly did it come to be that there are Sunni Monarchies? If we are talking Bloodline succession then surely the Shia would be more predisposed to supporting a Royal Family? where as Sunnis would prefer an elected Government?

Obviously asking from a historical point of view and how we got to where we are now, not about events since 1994 in that region, the 'House of Saud' I believe is Sunni for example, and has been around since the 18th century.

Thanks. (and sorry for the ignorant rambling)