Rasputin?

Two different pieces. Let me double check.

At least two, because there were two different guns destroyed and their wreckage found. A test model was built, but wasn't used in the war, as far as I know.

> I have heard of a hypothesis that geography can determined development path.

Is that Jared Diamond I smell?

>Were there "last minute attacks" at the end of WW1, as seen in the new "All quiet on Western front",

There were some last minute attacks, but not as seen in the film, which is not historical. The Germans at that point in the war were incapable of offensive action, paralysed by lack of supplies and ammunition, with shockingly low morale and poor unit cohesion. There were British, French, and American attacks right up until the armistice took effect, in order to ensure that the Germans did not manage to gain a secure, sound defensive position and simply wait the armistice out, gathering their strength.

>Or in any other war, how common was attacking after the peace was signed,

The armistice was not a peace treaty, merely a kind of ceasefire. That was the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn't signed until 1919.

When and where?

>But the older I get, the more skeptical I am that the social class just below the monarch would blindly subject themselves to the monarch's authority for the sake of upholding tradition.

They never did. The nobility had no problem revolting or disobeying in states that were often sorely lacking in centralisation; Magna Carta was practically signed at swordpoint for instance, by King John, who was compelled to do so by a bunch of rebellious nobility.

You are not talking about a modern state where we all reluctantly agree to elect a leader, and that leader wields vast power we have no access to. You're talking about a tiny minority who already has an enormous amount of power (physical, financial, political, social, etc) being kept somewhat in line by constant application of power-sharing agreements and marriages, competition, open violence and threats, gifts of land, money, and so on.

>I thought Alexander was just a conqueror basically, the same as any other empire like Rome

Rome, who famously didn't colonise anywhere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_(Roman) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonies_in_antiquity

Although people tend to talk about colonisation as being a modern process, it's arguably much older, and empires have been doing it as long as they have existed. It's what makes them empires.

>and I realized I am not sure of what exactly qualifies as 'colonization'.

You colonise a place when you assert control over it, and physically establish your 'superiority' in matters of law and culture, compelling the indigenous people to either remain subservient and/or convert to your ways. Rome is one of the best examples of this, constantly seeking a controlled influx of people via the foederati, establishing Roman citizenship as something to be sought after, etc.

>how everyday european medieval life worked? For example some questions I have:

When it comes to medieval questions you first of all need to decide when and where. In some definitions 'medieval' covers 1,000 years, and even people who unironically use the term 'Dark Ages' admit there was change over that time. The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England by Ian Mortimer is a good, informal place to start.

What story? We need to hear it before we can find out if it's true. If all you have is a snippet from the internet it's almost certainly made up.

> I would like to know however what y’all think regarding this new development

It's exactly as bad to the extent to which people will deliberately misuse it.

Memoirs of Sergeant Bourgogne.

>When the (Western) Roman empire fell apart, it led to a precipitous economic, cultural and scientific decline in Europe. Hence the "Dark Ages".

No. 'Dark Ages' refers to a lack of written sources from the time, not a cultural or intellectual decline.

>but the fact remains that there was a great decline.

Also wrong. The idea of the Roman empire as some sort of peak is fuelled by people like Petrarch and Gibbon, who were nothing more than Roman empire fanboys.

Is that why all the books on the Vietnam War are written in Vietnamese?

You could spend five minutes searching the internet and find out this isn't true. So. Why not give that a try?

'Anglocentric' in what sense? In that they were mainly won/fought by the British, or the Anglosphere as a whole?

>Do you agree with the observation every fascistic regime is really an alliance between the titans of industry and the financial elite and politicians they support?

It depends on what you mean by 'alliance'. I don't think Nazi Germany, for instance, was really allies with German industrialists and financiers; certain industrialists and financiers were Nazis, but most of them just went with the prevailing wind, and the Nazis continued to allow them to exist as long as their business served the state.

>If so, how does it explain the traction it has among the lower classes?

Typically because a fascist regime will project the importance of the lower classes (in Nazi terms, the 'Volk'), and will often promise to address their problems ('full employment'), but this doesn't mean they necessarily gain a lot of traction with the lower classes, nor that they do anything about lower class problems, or if they do, that they then won't add a new raft of problems. The Nazis were never that popular among the working class. Nazism was a solidly middle class movement.

>What were used if rags weren’t available?

That would be a very unusual situation. Linen was used, as it was easy to bleach it clean, and there was often a pad of moss or flax used for absorbency.

Well there's a complete lack of evidence for his claims, the fact he thinks it's Atlantis or an Atlantis analogue, which we know to be a fictional creation, the fact he's never done any actual archaeology, and the fact that we have lots of evidence of civilisations around the same time as his supposed ancient advanced civilisation, but they just lived side by side, and one left loads of evidence, and the one he supposes existed didn't leave any evidence at all.

Archeologists are constantly digging, making new finds, and publishing their results. You can find them on the internet. They're not hiding anything because their jobs count on them finding and publishing. No archeologist is hiding evidence of ancient advanced civilisations because they don't 'believe' in it, whereas Hancock believes it must be true, so they must be hiding evidence and of course the only reason he is criticised is because he's right and they don't want to be proved wrong.

Zero understanding of science and history.

...because they were divided by the Cold War? The USSR occupied East Germany and created the DDR, and a section of Berlin (which was located within the DDR). Korea was divided between the USSR and USA and the two sections of the country were encouraged to develop in different ways by the occupying nations.

cf. Andrew Roberts and Napoleon.

No, because German historians aren't lionising him. There are precious few 'scholars' trying to rehabilitate Hitler, and they're not German.

Medieval houses often used lots of whitewash, including the interiors, which would have made them look a fair bit better than the usual shit-brown huts, and we're finding new evidence of more extensive use of light colours for interiors, including things like distemper which were naturally yellow, or yellow-ish. This would also help the interiors look better when interior lighting was much more limited.

Clothes could easily be dyed bright colours, but colour fade would have been a much more important factor, and of course they tended to see far more wear and tear. There would be vast differences between the clothes of the different classes, with some colours/shades only being available to the wealthy, but even disregarding that, the workmanship and quality of the clothes (and in some times and styles, the sheer quantity of cloth), not to mention the dyeing itself, would be worlds apart.

The official name of the country is Nippon-koku, which means 'The State of Japan'.

>Today there is still one representative Japanese emperor.

The post-WWII constitution reduced the emperor to a figurehead. The emperor has no actual power.

>Rome is remembered for its supreme power, advanced engineering, military successes, religious customs, entertainment and its brutality.

You're just describing any empire.

>Whatever your view of Rome, you can’t deny that its international rule had wide-scale effects on our development.

Same as the British empire, Qing empire, Mongol empire, etc.

>The United States of America is the modern Rome, it similarity is uncanny.

O-kay.

You start to see accurate population trends in sample sizes as low as 30. Trying to auto-dismiss articles and studies based on 'small sample size' is intellectually dishonest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

>Why aren’t Goebbels and Himmler prominent name in the general public when they are practically the architects of it all?

You're claiming Goebbels was one of two main architects of the Holocaust, when he didn't even attend the Wannsee conference. Why?

The actual architects are the men who planned and implemented it. Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, etc.