Define conquest. The city fell more than a few times during Byzantine civil wars, but never to a protracted siege and assault, always by surprise - until 1204.Come one Dachs, I have a question the first "conquest" of Constantinople was during the 4th crusade not the conquest of Mehmed II.
Try this.NedimNapoleon said:Another one, other than the crusades that we all know what other crusades were launched? Several were launched against Bosnia, I know the Teutonic knights, any other?
No. Koreans are part of the Ural-Altaic Linguistic group, but that's very broad and doesn't mean anything in particular. Korean society was highly Sinofied by the time the Mongols arrived.Were koreans part of mongolic peoples before conquered by the Mongol Invasion or had the Koreans possibly similarities to any of white European peoples ethnogenetric?
As taillesskangaru and I proved in a previous thread, the Korean Super-Empire and the Aryan Super-Empire were one and the same, as proven by the fact that the name "Korean" sounds awfully similar to the word "Aryan." This, plus some maps pulled from Google image search, conclusively proved our theory.Were koreans part of mongolic peoples before conquered by the Mongol Invasion or had the Koreans possibly similarities to any of white European peoples ethnogenetric?
As taillesskangaru and I proved in a previous thread, the Korean Super-Empire and the Aryan Super-Empire were one and the same, as proven by the fact that the name "Korean" sounds awfully similar to the word "Aryan." This, plus some maps pulled from Google image search, conclusively proved our theory.
Nobody say anything.
No. Koreans are part of the Ural-Altaic Linguistic group, but that's very broad and doesn't mean anything in particular. Korean society was highly Sinofied by the time the Mongols arrived.
You need to take into account that chocolate is actually a fairly new invention in the West, though. The only reason we have chocolate bars and blocks today is that the guy who founded Lindt chocolate was irresponsible enough to leave the machines running over the weekend, thus producing the first chocolate in Europe that could actually be eaten as it is today, rather than simply being a brittle candy or used as drinking chocolate. It's likely that Wiki is correct.A show on Food Network also agreed with the Wakefield origin story, but people have been throwing everything under the sun into tarts, cakes and cookies since the inception of baking, so I do doubt she actually was the first.
You need to take into account that chocolate is actually a fairly new invention in the West, though. The only reason we have chocolate bars and blocks today is that the guy who founded Lindt chocolate was irresponsible enough to leave the machines running over the weekend, thus producing the first chocolate in Europe that could actually be eaten as it is today, rather than simply being a brittle candy or used as drinking chocolate. It's likely that Wiki is correct.
About 1872, from memory. Don't have my book here with me. Yeah, it's entirely possible someone else tried it first, but, as you said, it doesn't really matter. Wakefield was the first to write down a recipe, that's where modern choc-chipp cookies come from.Yeah, but wasn't that in the middle of second half of the 1800s? That leaves like 40-60 years there. I'm not saying earlier cookies were exactly the same as the famous Toll House ones, but I have a hard time believing no one threw chunks of chocolate in their cookies before that. Not that any of that matters anyways. Wakefield was the one who wrote her recipe down.
Could you rephrase that so it's a bit clearer?