I ask this because the sino-soviet split which devolved over who wasn't and was communist seems to me that neither China nor Russia were ever truly communist countries.

Soviet Russia because of their (like Hitlers) false biology except there's was based on class'ism rather than race and China because of their incredibly authoritarian society.

So I guess I'm trying to see if there ever was a truly communist country. I know a lot of left leaning countries were going that way that the US falsely accused of being alongside Russia (Chile for example were portrayed in US media as if they were part of a soviet axis when in reality they had just elected left leaning leaders)

New York is the new York since York is a city in England, but where is Zealand?

Why is Mark Antony not written as Marcus Antonius, when Marcus Aurelius is written in the proper Roman way?

To be honest (and a bit beside the point) I find the anglicizations a bit annoying when I read them in the part of my Roman history curriculum that is in English (English is my second language). Mark Antony and Pompey sound a bit weird and I don't understand why they are written that way when others with the same name are not are not.

With all the current troubles in the Muslim dominant old republics I can't see how they actually got that to work. Did they just turn a blind eye?

I'm not sure if this is allowed, since you usually need to source, but personal experiences would help me understand the public opinion better. Were people scared of them? Were wives tales forming (don't stare at/stand too close to it)?

For the rest of Europe, what were the non-democratic alternatives for state organization?

Reading through Roman history right now, and there's huge amounts of governors, magistrates, and senators that all seem to jump at the chance to invade anyone, simply for the profits that they'll gain from 'conquest' and 'plunder'. Patricians are frequently claimed as taking out huge loans and mortgaging their property to campaign for an election as consul, with the loans being paid back relatively quickly due to the money gained from conquest.

Skip ahead to today, and it sure doesn't seem like you can get much money doing something like invading Afghanistan, which has practically no resources or technology of any kind to be interested in.

So I'm wondering if I'm actually completely wrong and war is actually still profitable under certain circumstances (Iraq-Kuwait comes to mind), or there really was a turning point in militarization sometime between the Roman Republic and today when nations were simply too strong to be invaded at a profit.

Hi all :)

Please can you confirm whether the wikipedia information about the ghurid dynasty is accurate? I have a few questions:

• Is it true that they were sunni, or were they shia or something else?
• were they related to/ descended from either the umayyad dynasty or the abbasid dynasty?
• whats the link between the dynasty and the pakistan nuke (the ghouri missile)
• is there a surviving lineage of theirs anywhere?
• would they have an accurate claim to be referred to as "sayyed" (descendent of the banu hashim tribe, specifically a descendent of abdul muttallab)
• is there anything interesting about them that most people dont know?

Thank you in advance. I am trying to learn about the historical dynasties in/ around Afghanistan and south Asia so any help you could provide would be really fantastic

Good afternoon.

This is a well known episode in Portugal how John VI moved to Brazil when French troops invaded, and even more so known around here in Reddit how he "moved" the capital of the Empire along with him.

He left a representative government behind to meet the french, but to the common population this seemed like a complete flight and abandonment of the country to its luck.

But in all reality what could have happened to king if he had stayed? Would he be deposed, forced into exile, executed or made a puppet? What happened in other countries in Europe that could be taken as an example?

From what I heard most other countries don't hold this custom. How did this start? Also, why is fact that waiters will get tips a good enough reason to pay them below minimum wage?

I know that it appealed to princes and magistrates because it allowed them to undermine Charles V and seize church property but I'm not sure why it appealed to the peasants and townspeople or why pamphlets had such a big effect.

I understand that the Allied forces originated in British-controlled Egypt, but how did the UK actually communicate with these forces?

What was the situation in the literal Mediterranean sea in terms of balance-of-power? I have read that the Royal Navy had dominance in the sea at the time, but was it to such an extent that movement of forces and communications was relatively easy?

I'm currently trying to wrap my head around the logistics of the situation around that time of the war.

Hairstyles, body types, skin tones, age range, et cetera.

I think what surprised me most about that scene (as I'm sure was intended by the director and writer) was that the soldier was born in America and seemingly had no ties to Germany aside from his parents or other ancestors. He was probably an American citizen before going overseas to fight for Germany.

Was this a common occurrence for German-American families? Are there any accounts of this happening?

I recognize that there are variations in how much clothing is worn across cultures, even today, and that covering certain parts of the body is necessary in some cultures while completely optional in others. But as a whole, humans wear clothes. And other primates don't.

Do we know when that transition happened?