Thank you for the suggestion. I'll give it a look.

The article says that the gift was made on the condition that it would remain in the man's family. I don't know if that would hold up in a court of law, but that got to count for something.

The link to your paper in the article isn’t working for me. Can you pls share it here?

> I think I recall hearing somewhere that the Nationalists hit the Japanese in Shanghai specifically to overextend them, but if someone can speak to that with more authority I would appreciate it.

By no means an expert, but I'm currently reading China's War with Japan 1937 to 1945, by Rana Mitter, and that's pretty much what the author said about the battle of Shanghai, it was an additional front to tie up the Japanese and show them that China was prepared to fight. This was important because the Japanese were already advancing rapidly in the north. Chang clearly put a lot of importance on the Shanghai front since he committed his best trained troops to it, and they took appalling loses.

What was most interesting for me to learn is that the Japanese, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident, were not expecting much resistance and thought it would be a repeat of when they seized Manchuria without a fight. That China resisted really baffled and surprised them. They didn't even formally declare war on China. In fact, as late as the fall of Nanjing, the war was still being referred to in Japanese circles as "The China Incident." Chinese resistance and the loses they were inflicting on Japan also caused rage and anger among Japanese troops, which was likely a factor that caused the Rape of Nanjing.

I'm surprised with all of our computer technology if that is the case that we couldn't get a computer to do it.

Not really, the question can be answered/considered irregardless of it. But ok.

Been a long time since i read it but The Pursuit of Glory by Tim Blanning does, iirc, touch on a lot of these things in the time period it covers, 1648 to 1815. I can distinctly remember some accounts of how god awful it was to travel by road in those days, and the impact mass printed newspapers and pamphlets on social interactions.

Granted, that's a bit before the time period you're looking but it could give you a good starting point.

i mean thats not besides the point at all but ok

[removed]

[removed]

You could potentially, call England/Great Britain a theocracy in the 16th and 17th centuries when their king or the queen actually held a great deal of political power, but this is no longer the case. Much the same could be applied to Denmark-Norway, and Sweden since they also official state churches that their monarchs were the head of. Currently, however, the monarchs of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK are all constitutional monarchs and belonging to the official state church is no longer a requirement for full citizenship.

Also, the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell could also be classified as theocracy, though Cromwell was not a king.

Besides the point, but yes, you can make that observation & it is a fair one to make. Personally, I frame it as multiple separate wars ultimately coaslesced into one, broader, all-encompassing conflict.

Ok cool but the east in this instance would lack the legitimacy of the position of president of the US as they lost continuity and were conquered. Meanwhile the west, even though it is younger, continuously has a president ever since the split. The ruling classes in the east force the leftovers of the congress of west to elect one of their own as a president to legitimize their takeover.

Church of England doesn't extend to all of the UK I guess.

No Church of Wales but there is a Church of Ireland.

Church of Scotland he is considered an ordinary member.

So I would guess that since he is just the Supreme Governor of a church that extends to a small part of the Nation it could technically fall outside a theocracy?

At which point exactly was Rome conquered by the Greek by that logic?

It would be comparable to this.

The eastern United states, and the Western United states, split up along the 100th parallel. The Eastern United States falls, and becomes a group of different countries.

The Western United States, centered around its national capital of Las Vegas, becomes less Protestant, and more Latter-Day saints. They start speaking Spanish instead of English. The customs become more Southwestern and less WASP like. It starts warring with the Gitchi Gumi Republic, the nation of the Missouri valley, the Dominion of Texas,. Dixieland, Appalachia, and the North Atlantic Republic. They become Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and culturally Catholic respectively.

The western United States considered itself to be the successor to the country that was established in the east. And so does the rest of the world. By the East sees the union has been dissolved, and The West being something new.

First off, “a few latin speakers” is what we have today. At that time there were so many Vlachs and Armonians that we had special laws to cover them. And they were all over the place from Croatia to the Black Sea and from Vojvodina till the south of Greece.

The “few” latin speakers boosted the populations of Slavic states and still managed to create Romania later on. That’s how few they were.

In the 12th century there are still quite a few latin speakers in Constantinople.

On top of that,

Since when are Greek and Roman culture separated to a degree that a change of language is to be considered a change of culture? As far as i know Romans and Greeks functioned in synergy for a long time.

The status of Roman heritage between Rome and Constantinople in other words Catholics and Orthodox is a political thing.

Serbs called them Romei, Bulgarians called the Romei, Bosnians called them Romei. This i know for sure.

Economist Keynes's book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919 (haven't read it) is my go-to as the hyperinflation didn't set in until 1920-23. Quoting Keynes per Wiki:

>I cannot leave this subject as though its just treatment wholly depended either on our pledges or on economic facts. The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable, – abhorrent and detestable, even if it was possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilized life of Europe.

When Money Dies mentions that the Nazis rose during the hyperinflation, but once a new Rentenmark in Nov 1923 stabilized the currency, the Nazi's appeal faded away --- until the Great Depression destabilized Germany again.

[deleted]

Were ottomans romans then. When mehmet took istanbul not constantinople ;) he was the sultan of rum (rome)

one can reasonably argue that ww2 in Asia starts in 1937. Saying that ww2 started in 39 is a very European/Western centric view point

[removed]

So I think your problem is that you don't directly describe what it is to be 'Roman' because the term itself it not a very concrete term.

Romulus was a Roman, Augustus was a Roman, Septimius Severus was a Roman, a low wage worker in Constantinople in 450 was also Roman.

People and identities change over time. They are allowed too they adapt. But if you asked every one at everytime what it means to be a Roman, the answer is different.

To Romulus a Roman would have been a citizen of Rome, by the time of Augustus an Italian would have been a Roman. Something unthinkable even 50 years prior to his birth. The Romans literally went to war with the other cities of Rome during the social war to finally decide once and for the question of what it means to be a Roman citizen.

Eventually you have emperors who aren't even born in Italy, Trajan was from Hispania and his ties to the Italians are sketchy at best. Yet he was known as the greatest emperor, Optimus Princeps.

We use Byzantine because it's easier for us as historians to have that need dividing line between the Latin and the Greek empires, but it's an arbitrary line in the sand. It doesn't make the Byzantines any less Roman themselves. It just makes it easier for us.

The fact this one was gifted to someone and not plundered I don't think they really have a case at all.

You need to hit it twice between paragraphs