After the first Crusade why did they split the lands they took? (Antioch, Jerusalem etc.)Those kingdoms were some small kingdoms on the enemy homeland, far away from the allies. They could've formed a one big kingdom from Anatolia to Egypt but they split it. Is there any logical reason for it or was it because of fedualism?

I’ve seen many images of older planes, notably fighters and bombers from the WW2 era have string/wires connected from the top of the plane, usually suspended by a stick or something, connected to the tip of the tail.

What was the reason for that, and around when did we stop suspending the tails with wires?

1939: Despite stubborn finnish resistance, soviets troops managed to snatch some lands off them.

1941, Finnish troops re-capture those lands

I understand that in 1941-42 the soviet were pretty busy with the german army, but once they got the upper hand and Berlin was getting closer everyday, were any plans to re-conquer those lands?

Were there any troops available? Were they wary of the finnish resistance? Would the allies disaprove of such venture?

Could not find anything online, so I am trying here for an answer, thanks!

War requires a complex logistical system, from delivering everything from food to munitions. So how is a guerrilla force, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, able to feed and acquire enough ammunition to effectively fight, especially when guerrilla warfare places an emphasis on not holding land, and thus an industry to produce weaponry?

If there was a reasonable plan, how well was it executed? I imagine that if the plan involved seizure of foreign cargo vessels in Japanese and captured ports, you still have the problem of crewing them, and thus would need a surplus of merchant crews ready and available at the outbreak of war.

Was Allied flagged shipping to Japan in significant decline 1939-1941 due to UK commonwealth war needs and/or the various US embargoes against Japan put in place prior to the declaration of war?

Also since the USSR was nominally neutral with Japan in the December 1941-August 1945 period, did the USSR and Japan continue to (officially) trade with each other? Despite what I would imagine to be German and US/UK pressure to end such trade.

Some rather smart Ancient Mediterranean myth experts (and also me) were joking around recently about the comparative similarities of their mythological gods. I cracked a joke/comment about "And they're all derived from long lost Indo-European gods from 15,000 years ago." (Not entirely unseriously, as there's a theory backed by proof of that re: Comparative Mythology)

​

But it got me a-pondering: What I've read of Comparative Mythology has focused a lot on similar themes and archetypal gods in Indo-European cultures, but I'm not as familiar with similar work on largely Sub-Saharan African mythologies. Along those lines, Comparative Mythology, along with linguistics and archaeology and paleontology has long supported the idea that much of the Indo-European world has a shared base culture. So how does that compare to Africa and Asia mythology. And how collectively similar are all human mythologies?

I'm actually less interested in if it's true or not (though it would be nice to know) and more interested in how a historian could verify such a claim. It's not like people were signing a form saying why they were buying the TV for. I imagine you could see the ratings for different programs and extrapolate from there, but that doesn't seem much rigorous

When I think of kings and castles I think of mostly European decent. We all know the stories but I was curious what was going on in Africa during that time?

Specifically, how did fortunate son become so entwined with Vietnam war media such as apocalypse now, and the game Black ops when it was clearly a protest song against said war. Logically it shouldn’t be used to ‘glorify’ Vietnam warfare, but rather to condemn it

I guess I'm mainly thinking of how many white supremacists co-opt terminology like "Nordic" or "Germanic" for their movements, and some of them reach back for some kind of mythic white past...how do historians deal with that? Is there a proper response, or should it just be ignored?

In the 1910s-30s film business was already blooming in the US and I can imagine that there were a couple of very famous lads out there. When World War 2 happenend, did they have to serve as well or were they privileged because of ongoing projects or something similar?

If I google this topic, I only find actors that got famous after serving but were there already established actors in the war?

Just reading the wiki page of Muhammad Pasha and it seems like for two decades he worked quite hard to do what Japan did successfully in the same century. He reformed military basing it on western armies, had build a domestic armament industry, paved the way for industrialization employing western managers etc, purged old nobility i.e. Mamluks, created a central bueracaracy and much more.

But even though Egypt was much closer to Europe, it seems like that Egypt failed in modernizing even while actively trying to attempt it at this point in time whereas a faraway Japan succeeded, why is that? What undid all the advances made in Egypt during Muhammad Pasha?

My knowledge of the topic is exceptionally basic. I understand the de Lome letter was a major factor in starting hostilities in Cuba, and the Treaty of Paris essentially signified the end to Spanish colonial ambitions in much of the World. However I am struggling to find any information regarding how this year was viewed in Spain by the ordinary member of Spanish nobility? Any sources both primary and Secondary would be massively helpful :)

Thank you !

I've read that on this day (18 January) in 1919 the peace conference started to discuss the peace treaty to end world war 1. What was the experience of german representatives at this conference? What was their role in this conference? Had they any say at all in this conference or was their task only to sign the treaty?

What my question relates to mainly is what seems to me to be an overly positive image of the IRA, at least certainly back in the time of the Troubles from what I've read. I've read and heard about significant fundraising which was done in Irish-American communities in the USA which went towards the upkeep of the IRA and purchasing of weaponry for use in Northern Ireland. Was this a case of people being aware of the group's activities and choosing to ignore the worst of it, or was this more a case of total ignorance? Obviously these weapons and so on were used on "fair" game but also for the assassination of soldiers and policemen, car bombings, and so on. These all obviously being rather underhand, especially with the risk of injuring civilians as frequently happened.

(Edited out the bottom section as I was informed it was too close to he inflammatory language. Sorry for the mistake.)

Just a doubt in my head, since I'm asian and have not studied history of African continent pre colonisation much, I just don't understand how an African ruler could be better off then emperors from either of these countries considering the fact that both of these countries together controlled half of the world gdp according to books that I have read. I could be horribly wrong and if that's the case I'm really sorry.

I've read and seen many documentaries on the World Wars but none of them talked about South America. I know South America didn't really take part in the wars but what was the impact of the wars to the south american countries? Were they affected as same as Europe?

By galleys and junks I just mean ships/water-going vessels of each of their respective cultures. Also, by a comparison I mean what are the strengths and weaknesses of both ship styles and where and how does one have the advantage over the other such as; speed, mobility, armorment, battle worthiness etc. Please note that I'm asking for a comparison, not necessarily who was the absolute best at seafaring/ship building.

I am from Austria and here everyone is keen is telling you the difference between Germans and Austrians. Why is that? Werent the Austrians part of the HRE and even a leading force?

Title. I just find it interesting that there is nothing that I can find that can help provide me which elite group the Mughal Empire had that the emperor could rely on, etc. Did they even have one?