It never ceases to amaze me that the most powerful trebuchet ever built was in off all places in Scotland a relative small player compared in Europe and that none of the other European superpowers in the continent esp in France and Germany ever attempted to construct soemthing ina similar scale to capture the most powerful fortress......

But having read about how the earliest giant canons (which were small compared to what the Ottomans would later use) from after the decline of the Mongol empire but before gunpowder reached Europe in the Chinese dynasty that followed the expulsion of Temujin's heir in China shot shells at 300 pounds of force which was roughly the same force War Wolf propelled stones at.........

How come nobody before Mehmed ever tried to recreate a replica of Warwolf in sieges at Constantinople or at least some pre-gunpowder mechanical siege equipment with similar size and firepower? Could Warwolf threaten Constantinople at least enough to be a gamechanger even if it couldn't damage the walls effectively enough to create a breach? If one Warwolf wasn't enough could a bunch of them say 20 have been able to allow capture of the city?

You'd think something like Warwolf would have been used first in the big leagues such as the Byzantium and France or the Holy Roman Empire in the DACH. But instead it was only built in an unimportant campaign in the backwaters of Europe! And never been replicated by major powers like the late Abassids and the Seljuks to besiege Constantinople. Why did no one attempt to built a ballista or onager or other siege weapon of similar scale before gunpowder whenever they tried to besiege the prized mighty city?

In the legend of Robin Hood, the people of Nottingham are taxed by the English crown, and thus Robin Hood dedicates himself to defending the poor in Nottingham from taxation at the behest of a corrupt sheriff.

Are there any recorded instances of people in Nottingham being sent to jail in the late 12th century for not paying taxes?

From the 1950s to the 1970s, some European countries such as France, Great Britain and Portugal were engaged in harsh colonial wars.

Many young people aged 20/30 were conscripted and sent to fight insurgents in the African and Asian colonies.

in general, how have these generations been affected by these wars? What were the psychological, social, economic and political consequences of this experience for this generation of "boomers" and the "silent generation"? Have there been some sociological or historical on this matter ?

So the crusader states occupied much of the levant for about roughly 200 years, and were eventually driven out by a succeeding muslim powers from Saladin to the Mamluks. In hindsight, their kingdoms always looked unstable, and the moment a muslim power united itself, it was going to go after them.

What strategy could have made the crusader states lived on? Would it be beneficial if they merged into one empire? Would they have survived if the Mongols were more successful in conquering Egypt, since it was a close call.

Who were the last living people who who had already become famous or achieved recognition in their field before the year 1900?

The only candidates I can think of are WEB Dubois (died 1963), Winston Churchill (1965), and Bertrand Russell (1970). All three of them were first published in the 1890s, and they each achieved great success by 1905 or so, but I'm not sure if you can already call them "public figures" before 1900 (except perhaps Churchill because of his prominent background).

A simpler question, then, might be "who were the last people who were unambiguously well-known in the 1800s?" But the only person I can think of off the top of my head was Mary of Teck (died 1953).

I'm looking for people aside from children - I'm sure there's someone with famous parents whose birth was a major news events in 1899 and died in 2002, but until they start making bon mots or christening ocean liners, socialities and royalty don't count.

So I know America, which is what I want the main nation to be a kind of expy of, has a history of overthrowing nations and installing dictators, and that usually ends badly. I'd like some good examples of this.

The Nation in question, is my world's Dwarves. They were a hyper capitalist society run by an oligarchy of the wealthiest dwarves, the Gold Beards, and they had a huge debt over the human kingdom. To solve this Debt the Main Character organizes a revolution installing a fanatical leader of a rebel sect of Dwarves, the "True Heir to the Dwarven Throne" Okgruli Caskmaster.

Okgruli then takes his power, and in thanks nullifies the debt, than publicly executes all the Gold Beards, all the oligarchy, and tells his people that they will no longer toil for the rich, they will instead all work together, all gold belongs to all dwarves, and starts instituting communisim.

This is, obviously, a bad move...Poverty starts to grow, all the Dwarves being paid the same for their work, Dwarves are forced to work and can no longer find ways to generate wealth, gold is confiscated and redistrubuted. Dwarven women start prostituting themselves for bred, so he makes Prostitution illegal and starts executing prostitutes fathers, really just starts executing everyone left and right, "They are counter to our revolution, and must be culled" and the Dwarven kingdom just spirals down into the debts of totalitariansim. And during this, Okgruli himself becmes corrupt, living in oppulance, good food, wine, fancy weapons and armor, he says he needs to live this way to show what his new revolution can do for the Dwarves.

I'm looking for help because I'm on book 3 (of 5) and my dwarf plot is kind of running out of steam, how does this usally end, are there any real life examples I could look to for inspiration, preferably something in central/south america. Wealthy nations that America overthrows to get a better trading deal, and then it backfires and now they have to deal with this guy who they thought would be simpatico with them totally going rogue and making a mess for everyone.

I don't know if this helps, but there is a 3rd kingdom, the Elves, who I've modeled on asian cultures,they're very isolated culturally and economically and pretty racist to humans and dwarves, and capable of great technological acheivements.

I’ve been trying to figure out if this was on an ideological basis, that him and his wife were true believers and did not see a future for their children in a post Nazi Germany; or for practical considerations, like how Goebbels said to Hans Krebs something to the effect of that it would be difficult to escape with small children given his leg condition.

Maybe a mix of both?

Looking forward to hearing your input!

Events in Haiti/Ecuador inspired this question. Searching on Google didn't return any results. I am curious to know, in past history, have any countries' governments been able to successfully claim back authority from gangs (without replacing with more gangs)? If so, how did this occur?

Searching for hope in the bleakness of gang-run governments.

That sounds like it would be a cool and powerful thing to say, so like example:

China: I'm declaring war on you Bhutan: Nah

Was wondering if there were any people who succeeded to power, but not in the typical father-son succession

And what did they say or do that stands out the most?

Title .

The US already owned American Samoa. The United Kingdom was compensated with territories in Africa to exit the division of the Samoa archipelago. The rest of the islands belonged to defeated Germany. Considering the post-1GM historical context, with the USA having a broad economic and military advantage over the United Kingdom (which occupied Samoa at the beginning of the conflict), with great negotiating power for having been decisive in the German defeat, not to mention the financial and logistical support provided, was there simply a lack of political will to press for the transfer of the remaining islands?

Was it the intention of Hitler and the Nazi regime to maintain a German presence in Europe e.g. France, Yugoslavia and even Britain?

I imagine most of the population of these countries i.e see Yugoslav partisans or French resistance were not happy at all about living under this new German rule. If the war had gone better for the Axis powers, would they have retreated from some of their conquered lands so they were not spread too thin?

Thailand was never colonised they traded alot with the British and french and remained out of any big conflicts since ww2. On paper they should be at the same level as Japan or South Korea or maybe even richer since they didn't have to rebuild alongside keeping their stability.

But even now it is a very poor country without much cultural influence outside of its borders. Why is this? (BTW love thailand I qm just curious)

Lesotho was a sovereign state ruled by black people, but it was also small and landlocked and so would have had to collaborate and appease the government of South Africa to some extent surely?

What were relations like between the two governments? Did Lesotho effectively act as another Bantustan or did it exert its independence and stand up to the Apartheid regime? Did it act as a haven for South African dissidents?

Did Catholics worldwide condemn the conquest? Did Italy suffer any diplomatic or economic sanctions or repercussions for conquering the Papal States? Were there widespread protests in Italy over the conquest?

I heard about this in a random Reddit comment but couldn’t find anything about it online except in a Reddit post. Is there any truth to this? The US had the Philippines and at one point held diplomatic talks with the Sultanate of Aceh (a country that was located in Sumatra) that caused the Dutch to annex Aceh out of fear of them becoming an American protectorate, so it doesn’t sound that hard to believe to me. Anyone have info on this or is it just misinformation? Supposedly it was talked about in some kind of Malaysian school textbook

I'm curious what was considered Italian food before tomatoes from the Americas and pasta/noodles from Asia were available. What exactly was Italian food back then?

There was a brief period in the mid-to-late 1800s, where the US suddenly started to invade & establish colonies in places like Hawaii, former Spanish colonies like Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, as well as the Caribbean (Virgin Islands) & Samoa.

To this day, the US still owns those territories as Overseas Territories.

Yet whenever you speak to Americans they say the US was historically opposed to European-style colonisation due to "pro-Republic" & "constitutional" values.

So then what changed in the US Congress & among American elites that inspired this direct imperial conquest period?