Featured Answers

Active contributors today


I am not sure how to interpret your question.
I do not see what "instinct" means in this context.


Roman democratic values were dissimilar from the Greek ones though they were almost contemporary. The basis of the Roman Law were the 12 tables redacted towards the middle of the 5th Century BC. The Romans expanded their political system to a huge territory. By far greater than its geographical extent if you compare their means of transport and communications with ours.

Greeks (and by Greeks everyone means Athenians by default), spread their institutions not much further than a day horse ride from the city walls.
Greece was not a State, but a sprinkling of City-States (πόλις) with very different and often opposing mores and policies. Sparta was different (very different) from Athens. Crete was a semi dictatorship, and so was Thebes (just read Oedipus/Creon stories). The Sicilian Greek colonies that so much contributed to Greek culture and civilization (Archimedes and Empedocles just to cite two names), were ruled by Tyrants (that is what they actually called themselves and where the word comes from).

enter image source here The twelve Tables

The city states would regularly bind together facing foreign danger (the Persians, Troy...) but they soon would break up and have never ending wars (the Peloponnesian War).

Romans had clearly separated the legislative (Senate) and executive (Consuls and Tribunes) powers. The Judicial power was under the Consuls' supervision except for political misdemeanours where the Senate would come in. Greeks institutions would vary from Basileus (king) to Archonts, to Enarchs and all sorts of officials with different functions and mandates. Political involvement of the citizens was widespread. But there again, they were few, as many as would fill the city square (agora).

Cultural exchanges were more than frequent between Rome and the Greek world, even before the conquest. Influences and interferences where common. There is a well-known verse by the Latin poet Horatius that sums up the degree of Roman acceptance of Greek culture

"Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes intulit agresti Latio."
(Vanquished Greece captured its fierce captor. And introduced the arts in their agrarian Latium).

Also, think of the Roman religion. With very few exceptions Romans adopted the Greek gods and simply changed their names. As for politics, Romans stuck to their own institutions by far better adapted to their objectives.


It formalised a political goal to create a homeland for the Jews.


When the Zionist movement was formed by Chaim Weizmann and Theodore Herzl in 1897, their aim was to achieve a recognised state for the Jewish people who had been scattered throughout the world since the collapse of the Roman Empire.

At that time what was Palestine in Roman times was now part of the Ottoman Empire. Events accelerated with the outbreak of World War 1. The Turks (who controlled the Ottoman Empire) allied with Germany. In return for Jewish financial support for the war, the British Foreign Secretary Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration in which the British government committed itself to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Unfortunately they made similar promises to the Palestinians in return for their support in fighting the Turks.

When the war ended Palestine was handed to the British as a League of Nations Mandate. With both Palestinians and Jews fighting the British and each other, and the increasing pressure brought to bear by the rise of Hitler the situation deteriorated.

After the end of World War 2 the British handed over Palestine to the UN who divided into a Jewish state, Israel and a Palestinian state.

Israel was immediately attacked by her Arab neighbours but they were defeated and virtually all the land given to the Palestinians was lost.

Throughout this entire period the Zionist movement was central in pressing the claims for a Jewish state and this was reflected in the fact that Weizmann became the first President of Israel.


The Battle of Britain was a confrontation between the two air forces of England and Germany for the control of the air space occurred during 1940.


As soon as Nazi Germany consolidated her conquest of France it was clear that the last remaining adversary was England.

Plans (operation Sea lion) were prepared to invade the British Isles by mean of a landing operation through The Channel. This operation to be successful required the total control of the air space above the battleground and prompted a huge aerial offensive of the Luftwaffe aimed to:

1) Destroy the fighters’ force of the British;
2) Destroy the airports and landing grounds through bombing;
3) Destroy industries and civilian targets by bombing to reduce the military production output and demoralize the population.

Due to the superior technical capability of the British the battle soon turned in their favor.
The British had a superb fighter aircraft, the Spitfire, and had a secret weapon, the Radar.

Although small in number, the RAF (Royal Air Force) fighters could be directed promptly towards the German attackers pinpointing their exact location using the Radar and engaging them before they were even in sight of their objectives. This helped to maintain a high rate of readiness among the RAF pilots that didn't need to fly for hours without sighting any enemy and over-using their aircraft that for this needed less maintenance and were always ready in maximum number.

enter image source here
[A personal interpretation of a Spitfire and Radar tower during the Battle of England (1:72 Model from Airfix)]


An ancient tribe(s) that inhabited Britain.


The Anglo-Saxons come from 2 Germanic tribes, the Angles and Saxons (obviously), and there are others, such as the Jutes and Frisians, but they are of less import regarding the matter at hand.


Basically, as you may know, the Roman Empire (or, to be precise, the Western Roman Empire) was falling in the 5th century, primarily due to all the instability (they had been having monetary problems, brigands, revolts, etc., which had been going on ever since the "Third Century Crisis")(1). Another big factor for the instability was the invasion/migration/settling of barbarian hordes in Roman lands.

Basically, in northern Europe, the Saxons and Jutes thought it'd be a fantastic idea to invade Roman Britain, due to there being nearly no troops, fertile land to farm in, and all the other reasons you can think of to conquer new lands.

After a while (in the 800's), Britain wound up looking something like this:


They were invaded by Vikings in 867 (2), but they eventually kicked them out.


What is usually referred to as the end of the Anglo-Saxon rule was when the Normans (from Normandy, in northern France), under (you may have also heard of him) William the Conqueror, ended up throwing the Anglo-Saxon king out of power (king Harold Godwinson), after the Battle of Hastings (3). Afterwards, Britain remained under the same populace, they just had to get accustomed to being under French rule.*

*We still refer to people of Britain today as "Anglo-Saxons", I presume due to the preponderance of the Anglo-Saxons ever since the inhabitation of Britain (as they were not cleansed or removed or anything).

Notes (if you want to read more about the topics with the numbers beside them):

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

(2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
(Also, there is a really really good show called "Vikings" which deals with (2).)

(3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings


The reasons behind Rajiv Gandhi's dispatch of Indian Peacekeepers to Sri Lanka in 1987-1990 remains a hotly contested issue, but India's prime interest was to maintain its own stability.


The rise in Tamil nationalism on Sri Lanka was partly a result of discrimination by the Buddhist Sinhalese majority, but the early '70s was also a time for insurgencies of various kinds all over the world and a variety of Tamil insurgent groups appeared. At first, the Tamils of the Indian state of Tamil favored the cause of their cousins in Sri Lanka and India tolerated some support for the various guerrillas.

However, the main preoccupation of the Indian Congress Party and the government in New Delhi has always been to restrict regional seperatist politics; India cannot afford to dissolve into a squabbling balkanized patchwork of independent states. Through the 1980s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) slowly emerged as the most effective Tamil group, largely by attempting to eliminate all rivals as the champions of the cause.

Moreover, Velupillai Prabhakaran, the LTTE supremo, had been talking about a larger pan-Tamil state and was financing his war through transnational criminal enterprises, often running through Tamil Nadu. India became concerned, tried to negotiate an end to the conflict, and increasingly made its will known. On July 29th, 1987, Sri Lanka signed -- with some reluctance -- the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord. The deployment of an Indian Peacekeeping Force was central to the attempt to stablize the region.

Predictably, the LTTE paid no attention to the Accord, resisted all demands that it disarm and started to attack the IPKF. The Indian intervention also resulted in a personal animus by Prabhakaran for Rajiv Ghandi, resulting in his murder by an LTTE female suicide bomber in July 1991.

One of the best reviews of the overall episode: Gunaratna, Rohan (1993). Indian intervention in Sri Lanka: The role of India's intelligence agencies; 1993, South Asian Network on Conflict Research. ISBN 955-95199-0-5.


World War One was largely defined by the deadlock that mostly characterized the Western Front. This was due to the paradigm imposed by the technology of the first decades of the 20th Century.


In the First World War, the essential problem for the Armies of Europe was that strategic and operational manoeuvre depended on railroads while tactical manoeuvre still depended on horse and foot. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution had also produced extraordinary new firepower (machineguns, breach-loading artillery, magazine fed rifles, etc.), but there hadn't been a corresponding increase in transportation or communications technology.

The new weapons worked all too well, but cars and trucks (to say nothing of armoured vehicles and aircraft) were in their infancy, field telephone networks were unreliable, and radios were mostly impossibly large and also unreliable.

Armies created zones of devastation, then attacked into them, but the ability to control their components in combat was limited. The paradigm of the trenches was that a successful attacker walked into the devastation zone, away from his rail heads and supply dumps, while the retreating defender fell back towards his. A losing defender could always reinforce faster than a successful attacker could exploit his success.

Western Europe was closest to the main population centres of Britain, France and Germany, and had fully functioning railroad nets and the rest of the transportation infrastructure. Huge armies could be rapidly assembled and supplied. In the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe, the support for large armies was much more difficult to achieve.

The deadlock only broke in 1918 as Germany and Austria grew weaker, and the Allies were fielded new technologies and capabilities. Key among these were newer and more reliable field-phone equipment and highly specialized railroad construction troops. The trench-cracking Allied Offensives of late 1918 resulted when their armies could finally exploit success faster than the Germans could prop up failure.

View more
Ask a question Filters
This filter has no results, see all questions.
Question type

Use these controls to find questions to answer

Need double-checking
Practice problems
Conceptual questions