Why is it that the U.S. never had a big push to implement a train system? I would have thought that with trains being used so widely in Europe some founding father would have said "Damn, we got to get some of those." But now all we have are city subways but very little in the way of large distance railway systems.

Was it independent, part of France, or part of the Holy Roman Empire? After a quick reading on the question it is unclear. They had territories in both, at different times seemed to act as part of both, all the while taking a very sovereign foreign and internal policy. The leaders of Burgundy, at different times, attempted to claim the title of Duke and King, implying very different soverign status. Sorry if I am misunderstanding something

In modern times we've discovered thousands of dinosaur bones, and tons of skulls that clearly came from huge monsters completely different from anything alive today. I've heard theories of griffons being based off the skulls of protoceratops and dragons coming from dinosaurs, but one would think that many pristine skulls would have been found in ancient civilizations, and such unique discoveries would be kept as prized mythical treasures and passed down through generations. Do we have any evidence of this occurring?

We always learned in school it was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that caused the war. But there seems to be no clear cut answers as to what exactly caused there to be so much tension that such a thing would lead to a war as devastating as WWI.

What were the main religion of the region before Islam, what were the God or Gods and what religious practises did they preform.

i was reading some Norse myths and they seem to consider wisdom to be very important which runs counter to their traditional characterization as blood-thirsty barbarians.

so it got me thinking, Did the Norse have a class of people dedicated to intellectual work, like priests in medieval Europe or the scholar-officials of Confucian china?

and if they did, what was their role in a pretty violent social order?

Why is the Kaiserslacht when people consider “open warfare” to return to the western front? I understand open warfare compared to trench warfare.

Is saying open warfare returned kind of an exaggeration? Was the fighting actually that much different in the battles of 1918 compared to previous years? Or is this just something documentaries say to simplify the situation?

Additionally, why were the 1917 offensives by the allies not capable of starting “open warfare” and didn’t break through the German lines as effectively as the kaiserslacht broke through allied lines?

Was it simply just that Germany was reckless and through so many man into the offensive leaving them weak once they had ultimately failed? Or did they introduce substantially new tactics? Storm troops had been used previously in the war by both sides, was Germany’s use of them in the 1918 offensives really that much more skilled than previously?

Almost nothing about the confederate constitution sought to conserve the oringal U.S. constitution. One part that stands out is the destruction of the 2nd amendment. Why was this important to the confederacy?

Edit: more than just regulate and really limited gun ownership and sought to make it no longer a right.

It's easy to imagine a viking with a weapon in hand, but it occurs to me that I don't really know how a viking would get that weapon to begin with. The vikings were notoriously dispersed and adventurous, being both traders, raiders and conquerors, but also had a homeland in Scandinavia.

So there seems to be many different feasible ways a weapon could have been created. Was it local production with local smiths, local bog iron and local expertise? Were finished weapons purchased from traders from afar, or perhaps from a regional source within Scandinavia that specialized in weaponry? Or was there a complicated supply chain that mixes local and foreign elements that simply terminated in Scandinavia? Or something else entirely?

I'm interested in how both Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian vikings acquired weapons for military use.

I’m a French leftist trying to join the International Brigade in Spain during the civil war. What is the process like? How secretive will I have to be and what risk am I likely to face to get there?

As a Westerner during the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was always my understanding that Gorbachev wanted to turn Russia into a social democracy. Assuming his intentions were pure (which is a whole other question) did American (and In general Western) foreign policy help or hinder Russia’s transition into democracy?

This question applies both to the collapse of Gorbachev’s regime and the subsequent oligarchy created under Yeltsin.

Why there was "Scramble for Africa", but not "Scramble for China", Asia, Pacific Islands or other places like such?

Hi Guys, just watched the pacific for the second time and got a few questions to ask:

What did the Japanese think of the marines and vice versa during the war?

Did each side actually see each other as sub-human?

What books/documentaries would you recommend? Sorry for all the questions just really interested in this subject.

Thanks

I am reading a book right now on ancient Egypt. Right now I’m reading about WAY back like 3000BC-1000BC the author keeps indicating Egyptian locations like “Heliopolis”, “Herakleopolis” and other places in Egypt that sound to me like Greek words. Is the author simply using the Greek name for the places in Egypt? If I was an Arabic speaking Egyptian reading a book on ancient Egypt right now would there be different place names or would they also use the Greek words?

This question came to my mind after the recent news of threats of violence against the teacher who had displayed the cartoons to their class. It also reminded me of the History of Byzantium host, Robin Pierson, mentioning that he wants to be careful and not get too deep into the origins and story of Islam to avoid controversy.

Now I'm of course interested in knowing if there is a more widespread culture of avoidance and self-censorship around the topic of history of Islam?

I know that both were considered to be Untermenschen, but were ethnic Poles also targeted for total extermination like Poland's Jewish communities?

After it's conquest of Ming and Joseon, why didn't the Qing pursue Japan, was it because of the two failed campaigns of the Mongols?

I have always found it odd that some people insist on the idea that the Western world is built on Judeo-Christian values. My understanding of history is limited, but it has always seemed to me that the modern ideas of humanism and human rights came about as mostly a response to oppressions and wars caused by the church. I find it even more odd that some conservatives today try to put emphasis on the fact that Christianity shares values with Judaism, when it actually seems that Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity. That makes me wonder - is this idea of Western Judeo-Christian values mainly just an attempt to create distance toward the newest of the big Abrahamic faiths?