Also did the PATCO workers understand the risk of being fired in total? Did conditions improve for the new workers or was it the same/worse?

I heard that during the Russian Civil War there was Czech Army marching across the Trans-Siberian Railroad, and it was led by an Admiral. Is this true and how?

This is something that I thought I could read "between the lines" in several texts in the past (some of which might have been propaganda already in preparation for the war), but I never had the time to read up on it more thoroughly.

I was reminded of it recently because of the commemoration of WWI and how the US back in the time praised the bravery of the Serbs and their fight for freedom. Excuse my cynicism, but the first thought is what the US had to gain from either Serbia or Austria-Hungary or anything related to the conflict that was brewing, especially since the Habsburgs had no ambitions of becoming a colonial power and had interests only in their immediate neighborhood, so they probably were no opponent on the world stage outside of Europe.

I'd appreciate it if anybody could give me some insight on this.

I'm interested in street-level criminals, or organized crime. I know that no police force existed, so I'm curious how much experience the average Roman citizen would have with criminal activity.

I don't mean specific story and characters, story arc and plot?

I was wondering if there were maps available of all Spanish and pirate shipwrecks along the East coast of the US and Spanish Main, or anyone knew the history of where these ships crashed.

All the information I have found seems to be laden in inaccuracy and romanticism and the maps I've found are questionable.

I was walking today, near the old Roman Road at High Street Pass, and it crossed my mind that I haven't heard of any accounts of Romans exploring places like this, despite it being an interest of mine.

edit: why are people down voting my comments just for asking questions. man I'm not trying to take sides. just trying to learn.

I have always been taught that one of the reasons the Spanish conquered the South American peoples was because of European diseases decimating the native populations. If true, then why weren't the Spanish similarly decimated by foreign South American diseases?

I studied some classics in undergrad and am embarrassed I can't speak to this a little more than I am able to. I certainly, at least, am able to start from the understanding that we're talking about a time in history that long-preceded the nation-state or modern conceptions of borders. That said:

I'm finally getting around to reading the Gallic War, and at least the first few books of it seem to be basically about Caesar's activities in affairs throughout Gaul from his home-base in Gallia Narbonensis--"the Province," which is indisputably Rome's, and had been for a while. One tribe is trying to make trouble with another tribe supplying food for the legions and Caesar has to run up and intervene; one tribe is trying to rile up the others against Roman friendship and Caesar has to run up and intervene, etc.

At the start of the book, before any map seems to regard Gaul beyond the Province as "red," Caesar seems to exercise some kind of suzerainty or overlordship over the area beyond the Province--he's guaranteeing the freedoms of certain tribes, warning others not the mess with them, receiving hostages, and exerting what seems like a fair amount of influence over their internal affairs. Was this kind of activity normal around other Roman border regions? Or was Caesar unique or unusual in his energy and ambition to go proclaim himself manager of an enormous cultural region by virtue of his supreme military resources?

At one point he receives the submission of several tribes of the Belgae way up north--at least in his own account, they seem to basically acknowledge Roman authority. Does that mean their part of the map is "red" now, in the Romans' eyes, or in ours? Did Caesar see them as part of Rome's dominions? Did the Senate or the people? Was that made "official" by the territory's organization as a province later on? Or did they not regard sovereignty as black-and-white Rome's-or-not-Rome's in these affairs? What legal or political standards were important to them in calling land Roman?

In other words, what was the legal-political status of most of Gaul between Caesar's conquests and eventual formal provincial incorporation in the very early Empire?

I'm thinking more to do with the development and spread of ideas, rather than particular technologies (eg, computers or weapons).

I'm reading Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist and the first few chapters have provided an interesting overview of the history of innovation over the past 100,000 years or so. I want to find out more about how ideas in technology and innovation developed and spread.

So I've read that Leo Szilard and Isidor Rabi convinced Enrico Fermi not to publish his discovery that purified graphite worked as a cheap neutron moderator. Because of this, the Nazis didn't know and had to use deuterium, which was much harder to acquire and stopped by the Norwegian heavy water sabotage.

Is this true?

Why are Europeans dinner tables rectangular while Chinese dinner tables are round?

Why are Europeans depicted eating at a rectangular table and not a round one? Were other types of tables used?

I was wondering if anyone could describe the constitutional power of the German Monarchy before WWI? Was it an absolute Monarchy? I'm presuming not because Bismarck. In any case, how democratic could it be said to have been, particularly in comparison with Britain? Were there equivalent points in the 19th century that led to greater power for the German Parliament, and so on? (And were free/fair elections held - at least again comparable to Britain... as I'm guessing women didn't vote in Germany either).

Thanks!

I understand that this question is flawed to an extent. I am specifically referring to things like military and naval advances that we see in places like Europe, Asia and the Middle East. European powers made their way into a relatively unknown world and essentially dominated the local populations. My question is how and why? Did Europe catch the Americas at a good time? We're the Amerian nations less prone to war? Had they been dealing disease or famine? Part two of that question is why did the American nations seem to have so few great cities? I can't remember ever hearing about any great cities outside of the Myans, Aztecs and Incans. Do we know of any great Native American cities that we just never hear about or did they just not have any?

It's probably a pretty complicated series of answers, but I would appreciate any information you might provide.

I've read Thucydides and Herodotus (more recently) and I've always imagined naval combat was primarily ramming. I've also heard it described as "land battles" at sea, as troops boarded other vessels.

For all its other faults I was wondering how true the naval combat was depicted in 300:RofaE. (Lets not even talk about the oil/fire spewing ironclad vessel). There seemed to be very little missile troops aboard either side and the Greeks were just standing on deck as easy targets (without even some structure to hide behind). How were missile troops actually employed? Did the troops who ultimately acted as a boarding party just stand on deck as easy targets?