Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

Short Answer: Pragmatism. Long Answer: Looking at the history, there does not appear to have been much resistance to the US "running the show." This is probably due to the fact that the US, UK, and Canada were the initial parties pushing for something like NATO. This desire was intensified by the Berlin Blockade. Not to mention the fact that at the time of ...


2

I would say that the fundamental cause of World War I was the "Serbian" crisis, of which the Bosnian crisis and the assassination of the Archduke were merely "manifestations." Austria's response to the assassination of the Archduke was the so-called July Ultimatum. Briefly its terms included that Serbia fire a list of government officials, suppress books ...


2

After Congress of Berlin Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied by Austro-Hungary, but still was formally part of Ottoman Empire. As Montenegro and Serbia wanted to incorporate that Ottoman province together, they were dissapointed with that decision and as only consolation they got international recognition and Niš was annexed to Serbia. Regardless to ...


3

A large portion of the (ex-)Crusaders married local Christian women and stayed behind in the Levant after the demise of the Crusader states. The largest Christian community in present-day Palestine are the Latin-rite Catholics, generally believed to be descendants of Crusaders, though now they speak Arabic and are integrated in Palestinian society.


4

It is the baton of the Constable of France, or rather an imitation of it. The explanation of this particular baton is that William of Orange was originally the disciple and member of the court of Holy Roman Emperor, King Charles V. Charles fought many wars in France and as a sort of propaganda measure Charles let himself out as following in the tradition of ...


3

This is most likely a Baton, which is a symbol for a field marshal or high ranking military officer. He was involved in the Invasion of England in 1688 and War in Europe later on, so is probably a symbol to show his military involvement. The Baton does not have any practical use.


7

It appears that the crusaders were eventually pushed back onto Cyprus, which continued to have Frankish rulers for another three centuries. The Knights Hospitaller also moved on to Rhodes for about two centuries, until expelled by Suleiman. From they they moved to Malta, which they held until Napoleon took it from them in 1798. The Knights Templar tried ...


4

Quoted from "The Civilization of the Middle Ages" by Norman F. Cantor: "Indeed, Acre never fell to the Moslems. In 1291 the French knights who garrisoned it decided that their homeland had forgotten them and that the siege of many years to which they had been subjected would never be relieved. They arranged with the Arab general to surrender ...


1

To observers in the 20th or 21st century, technological progress is just a fact of life - why wouldn't you have it? But it is not inevitable. For one thing, change is often a risk to the people in power. Why should a ruler embrace a new technology, such as gunpowder or printing, if it holds the potential to unseat him? If other powers have already done so, a ...


2

Here is an outline of a few sentences distilled from many long paragraphs at my previously mentioned website. The apparent military superiority of the horse-mounted nomads of central Eurasia during ancient and medieval times was due to: The Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Hun, Avar, Magyar, Mongol, et al armies had a tremendous advantage in both strategic and ...


2

Why weren't Celts, Ostrogoths, Teutonic knights, or Slavs pushing east? At times, all of these people pushed eastwards. It just depended on relative technology and strength of population. Celts: At maximum expansion, about 270 BC, they invaded Poland, the Balkans, and even central Anatolia and the Ukraine. Goths: Before moving west ahead of the ...


-4

Excellent question! I respectfully invite you to visit my new website "The Nomadic Horse Peoples of Central Asia" at http://www.horsenomads.info Please note it is dot-info, not dot-com. I think the textual "Introduction" section of my website addresses your question rather well. Thanks! Stephen W. Richey


9

Your question presupposes a few key points: that Germans are more anti-Semitic than other groups, that Germans are more warmongering than other groups, and that the early Germanic tribes were more murderous than other groups, then asks if points 1 and 2 lead to point 3. Almost certainly, the answer is no, that modern-day Germans have not inherited these ...


1

your assumption that the Germans are "so profoundly antisemitic and war eagring" is wrong. You need only look at modern Germany, where Denying or approving of the holocaust can land you in jail, to determine that they aren't that "profoundly" antisemitic at all.



Top 50 recent answers are included