After America join the side of the Entente powers in WW1 the the Entente power started winning. But as soon as the entente powers started winning the central powers surrendered so quickly. And this when the German empire and the central power just defeated the Russian Empire and and signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk when Germany annexed Baltic states and other part of Russia to Germany and the central powers. The central could have done some sort of massive counterattack against the entente powers since they annexed large portions of Russia but instead they surrender. So why did the central powers surrender so quickly when they just defeated Russia and got a bunch or territory.

As far as I can see , he was born as the nephew of an Emir/tribal leader and his Clan seem to have belonged to the more influentel ones within the western Chagatai Khanate fore me at seems like he was more part oft the "Nobility" rather than an ordinary. The story tha got an arrow while stealing cattle also semm ficktiv as the russian scientist who exermined his corpes proofed that his condition was the result of Bone-Tubercolosis. I often have the feeleing tha people are a little bit too obsest with "from rags to riches" stories

I've always wondered why LBJ won so overwhelmingly in 1964. For many conservative states, this would be the last year they would vote for a Democrat for president. I get that Goldwater was very unpopolar because of his far right views, yet he managed to get votes in southern states that had almost never voted for a Republican for president until then. Yet LBJ was able to win a landslide DESPITE many southern states shifting to Republican. Today, LBJ's reputation is more of a mixed bag, and towards the end of his term in 1968 he was deeply unpopular, so I have trouble squaring that with his landslide win in 1964. What were the factors in 1964 that caused LBJ to win so decisively?

Did it begin immediately following the sinking? Did it take off with the 1953 Jean Negulesco film? Did James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster bring the disaster to light? Or did it begin somewhere in-between?

So I understand that Spaniards were in the middle of a 700 year long struggle to regain Spain from the Moors in what is called the Reconquista, but is there any evidence of Spanish bands participating in Crusades in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (particularly Jerusalem)?

Today, Hitler is pretty widely considered, at least in much of the Western world, the prime example of evil against which all other evil is measured. But before WW2, was there another figure who was treated similarly? Did every culture have its own prime evil? Did that kind of example not yet exist?

Thank you in advance for your help - I am awed by the knowledge of those on this subreddit.

​

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Neolithic in Tunisia ended only with the arrival of Phoenicians in roughly 1000BC. This would mean that there was no independent development of the Bronze Age methods (which began, for example, in Britain in 2500BC), but instead a rapid move directly to the Iron Age on the establishment of Carthage. I cannot seem to find much information or research on this.

Is this an accurate account? Can anyone share any more information? What are Tunisians taught in school and university about this part of their history?

Im reading a lot currently about Caesars Gallic Wars and the following years after it about the civil war. After the Marian reforms everyone can joined the legions if they are roman citizens but i read the for example Caesar raised legions in Hispania or taken Gauls in his legions not in auxiliary style or Pompeii raised legions in Greece or in Anatolia Can someone explain hows that worked in that era?

For example, from 1933 to 36, Congress passed over a dozen acts intended to stimulate the economy, protect workers and consumers, etc. Congress today would have grouped a lot of these acts together and tried to pass them in one massive bill, probably with a lot of other unrelated programs. Relatedly, it seems like a disproportionate amount of programs and policies today are passed through budget and spending bills, even when the spending and budgetary aspect are secondary to the substance of the issue. What happened?

(I assume these changes began more than 20 years ago, respecting the 20 year rule).

This is something I've been wondering for a few days now, and was hoping someone here would be able to provide and answer as to why they didn't unify and become kingdoms the way their neighbors did. I know Ireland at one point had a High King but was never able to become 1 singular state and the only times Wales came close to unification was when England was beating down on them.

The Tlaxcalans were famously crucial to Cortes' victory. But after the conquest of Tenochtitlan, they seem to disappear from the picture. What happened to them?

Many North American tribes still exist today, with a unbroken culture despite the introduced diseases and genocidial intent of invading Europeans. Why did the Aztecs (& Mayans I guess) get completely wiped out after contact with Europeans?

Edit: I am specifically refering to Aztec culture being extinct, not their genetic descendants. I realise that a large portion of present day Mexican & Central American people are descendants from the Mayan & Aztec people.