[removed]

[removed]

I don’t agree with the merciful beheadings, but the rest seems very nice, and the guy that banned them, probably smells like hot dog water! :)

Have you read The Last Duel by Eric Jager? It's the book on which the film was based. I preferred the book, as it provides more context than the film.

[removed]

No, also consider that for most of its existence, it was never even a non-stop barrier, but rather a collection of. The emblematic wall you know today was the product of the Ming dynasty, by which point the era of migrations was at its end.

Virginia Rounding puts that rumor down to three factors:

• The scholar and traveler Adam Ölschläger had claimed in the mid-17th century that Russians liked sleeping with horses and his claims became sort of an in-joke in Western Europe.
• Catherine loved horse riding.
• Catherine wasn't married throughout her reign, but still had a vigorous sex life with her various favourites.

Who said he turned his back on his beliefs? On the contrary, he was going to force his beliefs on everyone, you know, for their own good. The road to hell and good intentions, you know.

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/zudypq/did_oliver_cromwell_ban_christmas/j1jbtim/

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/zudypq/did_oliver_cromwell_ban_christmas/j1j9s3s/

[removed]

Which is odd, because he effectively banned all the fun things about Christmas... Like singing and getting merry. He didn't ban going to church (though no special services!) or quietly reading the Bible on the day.

>wheeled carts being drawn by humans have existed in Europe and Asia for centuries, if not millennia.

Okay but that doesn't matter when our earliest archaeological evidence for carts is often tied to cattle; the Brononice pot abstractly depicts a wagon and was found alongside the remains of an auroch. Tripolye culture toy bull is literally a bull on wheels. Evidence for carts and wagons appear in present-day Ukraine just after the introduction of cattle.

It's a boring answer but for whatever reason, humans didn't think they needed a cart until they had some other poor animal to drag it around.

Generally the rule is when there's a question for a headline, the answer is normally no

I think it was a typo....he meant to say "floundered" America.

Betteridge's law of headlines

I've never heard that phrase. They're some superficial similarities, but they were very different individuals, in very different contexts, doing very different things. Can you point us to where you heard the term?

The Great Wall didn't really prevent people from crossing into China, it was more of an early detection system than a true barrier. The Steppe pastures that horse nomads want extend westward, so it was a natural channel for them to go that way.

Pastoralists like the Scythians had been making regular crossings into Europe through the Danubefor centuries before the Great Wall.

The real impetus for crossing into China, and thus the reason for the Great Wall, was to take over parts of a rich civilization. That was a regular occurrence even with the Great Wall in place. When Steppe conquerors noticed new goods being traded from a rich civilization at the other end of the world like Rome, they migrated in that direction.

Truth is most soldiers used spears which was a lot cheaper and much more effective. Those with swords useally brought their own or had a specialized reason on why they needed a sword and not a spear but if you were just a random Roman soldier you almost always got a spear as your main weapon.

Then he founded the New Model Army, and praise be!, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby, and the King fled up North, like a bat to the Scots.

A lot of the terms in your question are very general and it's not clear what you mean. Sin is pretty clear, but what do you mean by better? You need to put what kind of metric you're using to mean better. If you're just looking at straight up numbers, sure, lots of other leaders have caused the deaths of more people.

But that's not the only thing that's measured when people claim that Hitler was uniquely awful. People look at how much destruction he caused, the time frame in which he did it, Stalin for instance was in power almost 3 times longer than Hitler yet didn't create a European wide catastrophe on par with WWII. Mao was in power for even longer, if you include his leadership of the CCP during the revolution.

You can also look at who the various other contenders killed, and except for Hitler, it was mostly their political enemies, or people who were thought to be enemies. Hitler killed a lot of people just b/c they were there. There's no Maoist or Stalinest equivalent of murdering the majority of the Slavic people for lebensraum. Neither Stalin nor Mao had any philosophy that required the total eradication of groups like Jews and Roma. Stalin and Mao generally killed people b/c of what they did or might do, not b/c of who they were.

You can also look at where they killed. Most of the other contenders were killing people within their own political entities. Hitler rampaged across all of Europe and North Africa, far outside the borders of Germany and Austria.

There's also the impact on what Hitler did to his own countryman. It wasn't just the military that was out killing people. He involved the whole society in the process, from the railroad workers shipping people to camps, to people who were given stolen property of Jewish people, to every business (which was almost every manufacturing concern of any size) that used slave labor. Under Nazism, it wasn't just the military, secret police, and political operatives. It was everyone.

[removed]

Don't know but he banned the Irish, sadly.

[removed]

Whenever media is titled with a question, the answer is basically always “No”