History questions not worth their own thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
How did Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane die? Because I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it wasn't by natural causes...

And why can't any of the really great people like above live to old age?
 
Attila died of a nosebleed on his wedding night.

Nobody knows with Genghis Khan, theories are injuries, pneumonia, or a princess killed him by hiding pliers in a certain part of her body.

Timur died on a tough campaign in the winter.

Timur and Genghis both lived well into their late 60's. But people who go on military campaigns constantly, surprisingly have military campaign related deaths instead of dieing in a bed from old age.
 
You're kidding me. The greatest man on Earth died from a NOSEBLEED.

Most anticlimactic death ever...
 
Is that actually accepted? I know it is the most contemporary account, but I also believe it was a diplomat from the Eastern Empire (not big fans of Attila) that is the source.

If it is true, I would say that there was quite probably something more at work, just with the nosebleed being the only externally visible symptom.
 
If it is true, I would say that there was quite probably something more at work, just with the nosebleed being the only externally visible symptom.
Most definitely. For example, I know when Francis II died, his only symptoms were bleeding from the nose and ears, and a headache. Most likely he had a brain tumor.
 
How did Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane die? Because I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it wasn't by natural causes...

And why can't any of the really great people like above live to old age?

Why would you call characters like these "really great people"?
 
I have a question about communist movement in British Raj.

How influential communists are in the independence of India and Pakistan?

Well India (I'm not sure about Pakistan) pursued a basically socialist path for a few decades after independence, so I would say a lot.
 
AFAIK communist influence on both Indian and Pakistani independence was negligible at best. (And, once again, socialism =/= communism.) The main drive for independence came from Gandhi's Congress party, which has basically ruled ever since India gained independence. Anyway, after independence, India displayed a rather sizeable communist party (which in some regional states actually ruled), but Pakistan did not. Somehow a predominantly Muslim population and communism don't mix well, it seems. On the international scene India has adopted the so-called Third Way (between communism and capitalism) for quite some time. (Also ofcourse, once both India and Pakistan became independent the Bangla Desh separation occurred, but that is another matter.)
 
Why would you call characters like these "really great people"?

I don't mean great as in good-hearted. For better or worse, Attila shaped his time, plunging deep into Roman territory an striking fear into the hearts of men. There's a reason the Romans called him the scourge of God. Genghis Khan shaped one of the most powerful empires in the world, and destroyed another powerful one in the process. So, in a sense, they are great, if by that I mean that they loom large in the annals of history. This does not imply that they are good-hearted.
 
How did Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane die? Because I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it wasn't by natural causes...

And why can't any of the really great people like above live to old age?
All 3 (especially Attila and Timur) were issues in our history class but i don't remember.
i just know that, as a legend, his tomb full of gold was buried in a stream of Danube, never found since. probably should be in today's Romania, if true :)
 
Question: In the Middle Ages, if the Cardinals were in conclave choosing a new pope, and a king needed to divorce his wife, who would he talk to?
 
Why on earth did the British repatriated French Troops back to German-occupied France after their rescue in the Dunkirk Evacuation?
 
Why on earth did the British repatriated French Troops back to German-occupied France after their rescue in the Dunkirk Evacuation?
After the surrender many French soldiers recognsed the Vichy government as their rigthful government rather than Charles De Gaulle's rival Free French government, and chose to honour the surrender. What were the British supposed to do, refuse to allow them to leave and potentially piss off a large number of French soldiers on their soil? Many Frenchmen were also a little pissed at Britain, which had been a French enemy and rival for far longer than Germany had, over the Mers el-Kebir incident. They didn't want to stay.

There was also the matter of a good-sized number of De Gaulle's supporters amongst the repatriated, which the British obviously wanted to get into the country to organise resistance and espionage. As for why they went to German-occupied France rather than Vichy; most of them simply went to be with their families. If those families were in the occupied zone, that's where they went.
 
Because they made the horribly stupid decision of colonizing New Jersey.

:lol: Actually, worse, Delaware

Although, seriously, they were basically around PA and Philadelphia became a prosperous city when others founded it, so that wasn't the reason.

The simple answer was lack of support from Sweden (Sweden had other issues, so it couldn't devote the full attention that the colony needed). It was never manned or supplied enough to defend because it was only seen as a trading colony. Therefore, it was vulnerable to the Dutch who decided to take over (the Dutch fell victim to the same problem, iirc, but I'm not positive on the details of the fall of New Netherlands).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom