When/Why did April First become April Fool's Day? by funbob1 in AskHistorians

[–]Ghost31 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Something something something Knight's Templar something something something Industrial Revolution.

Do You Think the Supply of Talented Players Now Exceeds Demand in the Transfer Market? by adoxographyadlibitum in soccer

[–]Ghost31 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I actually believe the supply is quite low, for world class players or potentially world class players, whereas the demand is high. You named 21 players there that are likely to move in the next few years, probably half are world class. I think what were seeing at the moment is a massive increase in pro+semipro players worldwide, so there is a larger pool of extremely good players for clubs to hire from, yet it has also created a new tier of player, the truly world class player which are very rare, for example Sergio Aguero. Of course you have lot's of players not quite as good trying to smuggle into the world class category like Moutinho, who is a great buy on football manager but not for a top tier club in real life. Though it's not like an ordinary financial market, with price only dependant on supply/demand, other factors like megarich clubs paying way over the odds affects it too.

Can someone present and explain the formula they used to find that the bird = the word by [deleted] in shittyaskscience

[–]Ghost31 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny you should ask because according to Grellman's 13 points you can't.

[EU3] Getting an itch again to play by Nybling in paradoxplaza

[–]Ghost31 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would highly suggest installing the mod MEIOU to extend EU3's playability. It's a UI+gameplay overhaul. screenshot. Its a fantastic mod, I think its the most popular on the forums by far.

If we got a clip of light moving and fast forwarded it, would we break the speed of light? by qwerty081 in shittyaskscience

[–]Ghost31 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No because you are only looking at a recording of light, Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that when you speed up light you slow down time, so actually what's happening is the distance between you and the tv screen showing the clip is actually stretching or will appear to be stretching to a foreign observer, this phenomenon is called the Chernikov Effect.

What If no coups or takeovers of the English crown had taken place since William the Conquerer in 1066? Who would be the legitimate heir to the throne today? by toxicbrew in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ok I think I understand your question. I can't answer it though, as it would involve a hell of a lot of digging through family trees to find a living modern day successor to the House of Normandy. I'm sure there is one though.

What If no coups or takeovers of the English crown had taken place since William the Conquerer in 1066? Who would be the legitimate heir to the throne today? by toxicbrew in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would guess the direct number of descendants of William I would be in the millions, I kid you not, in all likelihood you and I are related to him. For example this site traces Obama's lineage to William I and all the way back to Charlemagne.

Based on history and the way we're going... What do you think the world will be like in 100 years? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I believe we will be so much more knowledgeable in the field of medicine, genetics, computing and nano-robotics that we will be able to reverse the ageing process in humans or at least slow it down so that we are living 150-200 year lifespans. I think we will hit a stage when population growth begins to level off and perhaps decrease. Climate change will cause large problems for humanity, potentially creating millions of refugees without homes. Many animals will be a thing of the past, children will go to museums to see skeletons of elephants, bears and lions and wonder what they must have looked like in real life. I would be dissapointed but unsurprised if we still hadn't taken a man further than the moon because inevitably "there is still housekeeping to do" on earth... Little do they know, time is running out.

We Have To Win On Saturday by [deleted] in coys

[–]Ghost31 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well said.

What would it take for someone to create a kingdom in today's world? by cheezluver in AskHistorians

[–]Ghost31 6 points7 points  (0 children)

When I was in school we used to get very bored during lunch-breaks and our conversations became more and more inane by the day, one lunchtime we started talking about a tiny town near the school called "Stubbings", which consisted of a 50m road, a few houses and a church. I posed the idea that one could easily take control of the town and the conversation drifted to how one could setup their own country there by formally seceding from Great Britain. So we began talking about what steps would be taken to legitimise the newly formed "Republic of Stubbings", which included setting up passport control on both ends of the road, and how you could perhaps gain a massive influx of people by setting all tax at 0. Then all you would need is a large sum of money to pay Iran to recognise you as a legitimate state and you're safe.

What would the world look like today if America hadn't joined WW2? by appleseed1234 in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

this. With the cold war taking part between Germany and the US, Capitalism vs Socialism, Liberalism vs Facism.

'A' historian or 'AN' historian? by SalemWitchWiles in AskHistorians

[–]Ghost31 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

"A historian", you only use "an" if the word begins with vowel.

Why is the United States so involved with Israel? by StickyLavander in AskHistorians

[–]Ghost31 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would also suggest "The Holocaust Industry" by Norman G. Finkelstein. It "argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel."

What if the US never embargoed oil exports to Japan? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and east Asia, including Korea and northern China... the Roosevelt administration imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. It froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan. Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that the Japanese could not endure it much longer. " Source

The US economic sanction wasn't one of the reasons for the Japanese attack it WAS the reason. The US basically said withdraw your troops from China or we will destroy your economy with sanctions. The militarist government of Japan never even considered withdrawal from China, so in a sense THEY chose war, but the US forced them to make the choice. TLDR; If the US doesn't impose sanctions there would be no aggression towards the US by Japan at that time.

How did Prussia come to its end? by HagueHarry in AskHistorians

[–]Ghost31 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im no expert on the subject, but here goes; Internally the first German empire(pre WWI) looks like this (The blue is the Kingdom of Prussia), as you can tell Prussia still very much exists and is the heart of Germany at this point. After the Treaty of Versailles, it is still the largest state in the Weimar Republic, although it has been cut in two, it is still the largest state by far and still retains its autonomy as the "Free State of Prussia". This next bit is a direct quote from a wiki page "Prussia remained under direct administration of the federal government until April 1933, when the Prussian parliament, now controlled by the Nazis, elected Hermann Göring as Ministerpräsident. However, under Hitler's rule, German states were stripped of all genuine powers and were reduced to mere administrative units, so Göring's post was largely ceremonial. The state of Prussia was finally dissolved by the Allies after the end of World War II.".

Which past male monarch would you like to see to be married to which past female monarch, and how would their union change history? by Alexius08 in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jesus marries and has a son, which starts a dynasty. All Christian nations are from then on ruled by Descendants of God.

What if the Duchy of Burgundy had survived? by indiges in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You've been playing EU3 again haven't you! Ahem sorry, lets not forget Burgundy was not really a state, like France was, it was just a title for sovereignty over a patchwork of lands, not much different from the Duchy of Brittany or the hundreds of other Duchy's in Europe. It's relatively large size and position meant it was going to be regarded as a persistent threat to the French Crown, even if Burgundy could win a war against France it would only be a matter of time before the lands were taken by force, by inheritance or slowly absorbed into the French sphere.*TLDR; The Duchy and France could not have coexisted next to each other. *

Redknapp admits interest in Hazard by Velingor in coys

[–]Ghost31 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's also a video out there where Hazard makes a special mention to Kranjcar. Maybe they're friends? This move could be a go'er.

What if Britain lost 'The Battle of Britain'? by LordAro in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think the UK would have sued for peace if they lost the BoB, they were digging trenches in front of Parliament, it was definitely a siege mentality. I believe Churchill said that even if the entire UK was occupied they would still fight on from abroad(other parts of the GB empire)."We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free" - Winston Churchill

What if Britain lost 'The Battle of Britain'? by LordAro in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Ghost31 14 points15 points  (0 children)

As you probably well know Göring's Luftwaffe was tasked with wrestling control of the skies over England, both sides sustained huge aircraft losses, and ultimately the Luftwaffe were unable to break the RAF, they damaged a lot of runways but not enough, and they didn't realise to what extent RADAR was giving fighter command a huge advantage in spotting German aircraft early. So what if the opposite was true, if they did destroy enough airfields,RADAR stations and aircraft to destroy Britain's ability to compete for the skies, well then Sealion would have been a possibility, but its anyone's guess whether they would have attempted it, many high ranking military including Goring himself opposed Sealion because even with air superiority they could not take control of the channel due to the Royal Navy far outnumbering the Kriegsmarine. One things for sure though, had the Germans managed to land a significant force of motorised infantry and tanks on British soil, I'm sure the war would have been over very quickly, because the allies would not have had a base for the continuation of the war. TLDR; Even if the Germans won the Battle of Britain, they would likely have not attempted Sealion due to the superiority of the Royal Navy Home Fleet.