There are some minor works that have been discovered over the past twenty years or so, but nothing of any major importance that I can recall.

As to whether or not these other major works have been lost forever, the answer is that they most likely have indeed been lost.

The great fire of Rome that Suetonius mentions was responsible for destroying a considerable number of scrolls, but nobody can say exactly how many or even what they might have contained.

Furthermore, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria resulted in the loss of countless more.

It is estmated that this library alone contained half a million documents.

In addition to this, the ancient sources of information were not always stored in secure locations,and the manner in which they were recorded was not reliable.

Most of the scrolls from that period would have naturally deteriorated over time.

Those that have been found over the past century have mostly been documents that were stored in some fashion that protected them from the ravages of time.

There are so many lost works that it is probably impossible to establish a comprehensive catalogue.

Not to mention of course those works we will never know they even existed.

Even in recent times the burning of libraries can wipe out invaluable manuscripts (e.g. Jaffna library ).

Two examples which immediately come to mind: The history of the Etruscans composed by emperor Claudius (his first giant wife being of Etruscan origin).

The Apocryphal Gospels .

Think for instance that the mother of the discoverers of the Nag Hammadi library did actually burn the vast majority of the works that had survived for centuries... just to cook the household food...

And there are many more.

We would love to have the detailed account of Pytheas' exploration of Ancient Britain for example.

Wikipedia has a catalogue mainly applicable to western culture which will give you an overview ordered by famous authors.

Not to quibble, but this isn't really an 'or' question.

Yes, we'll keep discovering things we haven't found, and

yes, there are many things that have been permanently lost.

Keep in mind that before the printing press you didn't go to the bookstore - you found a guy who had the book you wanted, and asked if you could crash at his house for a couple of weeks while you copied it out by hand.

A book has to be pretty good for people to do that for a thousand years.

Many potentially interesting historical records, like letters and personal diaries, would never have been copied at all, and were lost when the original was burnt, left out in the rain, or whatever.

Factor in deliberate destruction, and it's really kind of amazing that we have as much as we do.

The dead sea scrolls are an example of something major being found by chance.

It is possible there are other stores like those but

it is unlikely.

The further we go, the less chance of finding something usable exists.

A better link would be the dead sea scrolls online .

history.stackexchange.com/users/103/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

There is always hope of recovering lost works.

Recently a new fragment of Aristotle was recovered in Oxyrhynncus.

Lost works are sometimes found in newly discovered tombs and trash middens.

Also, they are sometimes discovered as palimpsests .

In other cases, important works are discovered hidden away unnoticed in libraries.

A typical example of this was the discovery of the Armenian Chronicon .

The first book of the Chronicon of Eusebius, a crucially important book of history, was long thought to be lost, when it was discovered translated into Armenian in the ancient library of the Armenian monastery on San Lazzaro in Venice in approximately 1818.

The Aswan Dam systems destroyed or covered with water many historical artifacts of Ancient Egypt.

Some are apparently lost forever, some have been rescued, some are being rediscovered now, or can be observed using special tools and gear, (scuba diving, etc) or at particular times of the year or day, depending on the rising and falling of the Nile.

A quick internet search will reveal numerous references and sources.

Here's one: Egypt:

Historical Pharaonic Egyptian Sites - Pharaonic Temples

Many Greek works of history and otherwise are gone.

I suppose it's possible that the odd scroll or piece of information might be found, but it's not likely to ever fill in the gaps that exist.

One example would be the Stoics.

They are sometimes divided by time period into Early Stoa, Middle, and Late.

Among those philosophers, little to nothing is known about many of the early leaders, people like Zeno, Cleanthes, or Chrysippus.

Only newer Stoics like Seneca, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius are really known, at least relatively speaking since even they are not known very well.

There are other examples of Romans or Greeks whose history or philosophy are lost.

Question: I'm in a Year 11 Ancient history class studying Rome, and whenever I look over ancient sources on wikipedia, there is always a list of lost works, and occasionally a sentence describing how unfortunate it is we don't have one of them, for whatever particular reason.  I'm curious though, are these actually works that are lost permanently, or are we still discovering more of these currently?  Take  Suetonius  as an example of such a historian.

Are there ancient historical sources which have been permanently lost?

There are many works that have been permanently lost, often from fire and damage. New works are sometimes discovered in tombs.

Yes, many ancient sources have been lost over time for a variety of reasons. As for discoveries, it's true that some minor works are discovered from time to time, but rarely anything of great signficance.

Yes, there are many major ancient sources that have been lost for a variety of reasons.

There are some minor sources that are still discovered occasionally, but they are rarely of much significance.


If there was an extensive Viking presence in North America, it has not been documented.

And the doings of the "western" (Norwegian) Vikings are fairly well documented.

What would be accurate illustrations of vikings and viking culture?

One of the issues is that the Vikings didn't "know" that they had "discovered" (or were close to discovering), a new continent.

To them, Newfoundland (an island) was just another Greenland or Iceland, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, with no particular relevance to anything else.

There is some various "evidence", but all of it is of such low quality or shaky provenence that they are generally considered fakes.

For example, we have the Heavener Runestone , in Oklahoma.

The writing scheme employed, Elder Futhark runes , were used far before the other Viking excursions into North America, and two of the runes are incorrect.

There are a few other proported Viking artifacts in Oklahoma, but all are generally accounted as either similar low-quality modern fakes, or more likely Native American in origin.

There is also the Kensington Runestone , from Minnesota.

It also seems to be a forgery, although a slightly better done one.

Then there are the Beardmore Relics .

These appear to be genuine iron Viking-age artifacts, supposedly found in Ontario.

Their authenticity is not in a lot of doubt, but most scholars believe they were probably planted in Ontario.

The son of the "finder" signed a sworn affadavit that they were in fact planted there by his father.

So there are hints of Viking activity around Oklahoma and the western Great Lakes area, but most likely that has more to do with modern scandanavians settling in those areas than any actual Viking activity there.

There's no real accepted evidence of a Viking presence in North America outside of Greenland and Newfoundland.

No. L'Anse aux Meadows is all that was found on the American continent.

There is less spectacular evidence of Viking activity in the north which includes bits of iron, both meteoritic iron from Greenland and smelted iron from Iceland and Norway, bits of smelted copper and a few bits of sawn oak which were found in old aboriginal sites in the north including metal into the central high arctic.

What is not known is exactly how this material was distributed which could range from extensive Viking travel into northern Canada to aboriginals robbing out of abandoned Viking sites i.e. evidence of contact but not explanatory of the exact nature of contact.

Typical Aboriginal use of European metal goods was reuse to suit Aboriginal lifestyle; for example, breaking down copper pots to make arrow points for bird hunting, beads, nose rings, etc; consequently, complete artifacts may have not long remained in obvious Viking form.

It was certainly the case that Aboriginals had no use for iron boat nails to build watercraft but found many other uses for them.

Well, there's the Maine Penny .

It may have been traded from more northern tribes down the coast, or from Greenlanders who traveled much farther south than we knew.

Question: The Vikings  appear to have had two long-lasting communities in Greenland, and a site has been found at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland Canada.  But is there any solid evidence that the Vikings had a more extensive presence in pre-Columbian North America?

Is there evidence of extensive Viking presence in North America?

There is some shaky evidence around Oklahoma and the Great Lakes but it's not generally accepted.

It is generally considered that there is not evidence to suggest an extended Viking presence in North America. Artifacts have been found, but nothing that conclusively points to an established Viking presence in the region.

There has been some evidence of a Viking presence found in North America, but it is very inconclusive and scarce.

It is said that there is no clear evidence of an extensive Viking presence in North America.


While there are many similarities in the causes (high unemployment, poverty, a feeling of opression from the regime etc.), the mechanics are somewhat different.

I would say that in the Russian revolution of 1917, the people had a leader, an elite, and an ideology of how the state should be after the revolution.

While it is true, in hindsight, that the leader and elite were working mostly for themselves, and the ideology never materialised into proper Communism (they got stuck in the transitional phase)

, there was at least a clear thought as to where the revolution was going, and what it wanted to achieve.

With the recent uprising in Egypt, you could metaphorically say that it wasn't one revolution of a million people, but a million single-person revolutions.

There was no clear ideology binding the protesters, except that the current situation must be changed.

There was no clear vision of what it should be changed to .

As a caveat, note that the Arab Spring is only barely over, and we do not yet have the proper historical perspective with which to view it.

That will be for the historians of the next generation.

This is a homework-style question and should be tagged as such.

That said, comparing the wiki articles for the 2011 Egyptian Revolution and the Russian Revolution , we can come up with a few basic differences.

One key difference is the scale and scope of the results.

For instance, Wikipedia notes some of the concessions given in 2011: Ouster of President Mubarak and Prime Ministers Nazif and Shafik; Assumption of power by the Armed Forces; Suspension of the Constitution, dissolution of the Parliament; Disbanding of State Security Investigations Service; Dissolution of the NDP, the former ruling party of Egypt and transfer of its assets to the state Prosecution of Mubarak and his family and his former ministers Now of course the conditions in Egypt are still fluid, but very simply we can note that the stakes in 1917 were quite different.

The current military "guardians" of Egypt are not the Bolsheviks who took over power after crushing the Russian Empire.

At any rate, Wikipedia notes some of the major results (my emphasis): Abdication of Nicholas II

End of the Russian Empire Bolsheviks' takeover of power [!]

Start of the Russian Civil War

So of course there are similarities: both were "people's revolutions", and ended up disrupting the existing power structures; but the revolution of 1917 was of a very different character and driven by a different, more 'cohesive' political agenda -- that is to say, on my reading there is a broad and diverse ideological basis for the Arab Spring, and Egypt exemplifies this complexity.

The main difference is that we know more than 300% of information on the Russian revolution and its consequences.

(Everything in 3 or more versions).

And we know nothing about the Egyptian revolution and its consequences.

Hmm..

One little problem.

In Russia in 1917 there were two revolutions.

Absolutely different, nothing in common.

Which one are you talking about?

The major causes of the Bolshevik revolution can be seen in their two most popular slogans "All power to the Soviets" and "Peace, Bread, and Land".

The Russian revolution was in some ways a conclusion of previous revolutions in Russia (1898, 1905, the March 1917 revolution) in that the peasants still did not have control over their land and the industrial minority were still unhappy with the socioeconomic situation in Russia.

Added to this growing pressure on the monarchy was Russia's involvement in WWI, a war it was not technologically or militarily prepared for.

As a result, the casualties in the tsar's armies were massive and many soldiers were desperate for a peaceful withdraw from the war.

Egypt is different in that it isn't quite confluence of events 1917

Russia was.

It isn't facing a major war, the economic conditions are rather different, and the socialist parties are not dominant.

As a previous commentator noted, Egypt's opposition is nowhere near as united as the Russian opposition was, indeed an argument can be made that Egypt's opposition isn't even as united as Russia's was during the height of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split.

While the Russian opposition was focused on the extent of socialist reform, the Egyptian opposition is fractured on more fundamental motivations, mainly between the Islamists and the more secular element of the revolution.

The split within the Egyptian opposition is actually a common division in Arabic politics for several hundred years.

In most Arab countries(Egypt included), western powers have manipulated Arab governments for their personal gains.

As a response, some factions believed the best way to combat this was through becoming more like the West to surpass or become on par with those powers, or to turn towards a uniting factor such as pan-Islamic or pan-Arabic sentiment to run out the invaders.

In Egypt, the government under Mubarak ruthlessly suppressed the Islamic movement, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood.

As a result, the more religious and traditional elements wanted his government to resign.

The modernist factions were similarly outraged by the repressive nature of the regime and also wanted to bring an end to Mubarak.

At this point, the major demand of the Egyptian protesters are for a more representative, open, and less repressive government.

Unlike the Russian revolution, there is no unified goal towards a broader societal reformation.

Also it is quite arguable that the Russian revolution was under far greater pressure as there was the threat of not only the retaliation from the government, but a German invasion and then the threat of an externally organized and funded counter-revolution by the great powers of Europe.

Mubarak was ousted but the corrupt military are still in charge, even more openly than before.

The Russian Revolution managed to completely change the state.

Question: What is a difference between the revolution in Egypt that sprung recently and the Russian Revolution of 1917  i need to find a difference between the revolution that happened recently in Egypt, forcing mubarak out of power and the russian revolution of 1917.   The difference must be related to the causes and circumstances around the revolutions.

What is a difference between the revolution in Egypt that sprung recently and the Russian Revolution of 1917

The Egyptian revolution was not nearly as united and was less focussed on social reform than in Russia.

The two revolutions had very different mechanisms and scales, although they shared other similarities. One of the main differences was that the Russian revolution was a largely united movement whilst the Egyptian revolution was highly fractured and included many competing interests.

Whilst there were similarities between the two revolutions, the mechanisms were somewhat different.

The scale of the two revolutions was quite different.

The Russian revolution was largely a united movement whilst the Egyptian one was very fractured with multiple competing interests.


The British were in charge of India from 1858 to 1947.

During the period from 1877 to 1947 (or so), the British monarchs also called themselves "Emperor of India" or "Empress of India," in addition to their status as King or Queen.

So Victoria signed letters as "Victoria RI," where the R was for "queen" (Regina) and the I was for "empress" (Imperatrix).

Victoria was persuaded to take the title of Empress of India by then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli in 1876

Partly this was to stop the political embarrassment that her daughter was married to the heir to the German emperor which would have made her daughter an empress

and so outrank her - thus making Britain less important than Prussia.

Mostly it was that Disraeli was an expert politician and able to twist the monarch and public opinion to his purpose.

Giving the head of state an impressive title that made her happy, the people happy and increased the country's international standing - at no cost - was a masterstroke.

Victoria and her successors were king/queen of the United Kingdom (England + Scotland + Wales + Ireland) and emperor/empress of India in personal union, in part at least so as not to be outdone by the Hohenzollern (king of Prussia and emperor of Germany) and the Habsburgs (emperor of Austria and king of Hungary).

“RI” (regina-imperatrix) is the exact equivalent of “k.u.k.”

(kaiserlich und königlich).

People talked about the British Empire, but nobody ever actually officially created a British Empire.

There was no monarch of the British Empire, no prime minister of the British Empire, not cabinet of the British empire, no parliament of the British Empire, etc.

There was merely the United kingdom and a bunch of colonies controlled by it with no central institutions except for those which the United Kingdom already had.

They sometimes used the title "King-Emperor".

The main cultural region was England (& Britain), which had historically been "Kingdoms" not "Empire".

Hence it was more culturally acceptable for the reigning monarch to be called "King", not "Emperor".

There is no formal ritual which bestows the title "Emperor".

The term doesn't have a legal meaning, there no copyright, nothing to prevent Joshua Norton from declaring himself to be the Emperor of North America.

(Pedants may argue that the term derives from Imperator, which does have a formal requirement and bestowal ritual, but since the fall of Rome that title is not relevant.)

Arguably the Monarch of the United Kingdom became an Emperor in 1759 after the Battle of Quebec.

Great Britain defeated France and inherited title to French lands in North America.

That is the event that my teachers asserted made the UK an Empire, although there isn't really a legalistic justification for the change.

The UK suddenly had Imperial problems, which I would loosely define as "How to perform governance in a foreign land where domestic governance obviously doesn't apply?".

North American colonies were not "represented" by members of Parliament, nor by the House of Lords (One could argue the Lords Spiritual, but ...)

British law applied and British rights, but governance would have to be exercised differently.

There could be no Bishops, no Lords, no Barons, no Marquis, etc.

The institutions of governance that relied on these officials would have to be restructured.

For me, that is an Imperial problem and that is why Britain is suddenly an Empire.

(note that Scotland had Scottish titles and Scottish governance institutions that the UK could co-opt; there were no such institutions in North America.

While the individuals serving as Governors' may have had titles, they were serving as the King's representative, not as titled Lords.)

Flip the question

the other way - What would have happened if Britain were never an Empire?

What if there is no point at which one can say "at this point Britain is not an Empire, but at the point it is."

Nothing in history would have changed.

Emperor is a word we use out of convenience to describe Executive authorities that must incorporate a diversity of governance institutions.

(In point of fact, I believe that Adams suggested that G. Washington be addressed as his Imperial Majesty.

Thank goodness he was defeated.)

Question: When did the British monarch become an Emperor? I know that Queen Victoria became Empress of India, that there is an order of the British Empire, but is there such a thing as a British Emperor?

When did the British monarch become an emperor?

After the battle of Quebec in 1759, the British monarch become Emperor. From 1877 to 1947, the British monarch also referred to themselves as Emperor of India. There is no formal rule about use of this title.

There is no formal way of defining a British monarch as an Emperor or Empress. However, the term "Empress of India" was used, and some would argue that the British monarch played the role of an Emperor following the Battle of Quebec, even though the term was not official.

British monarchs used the title Emperor of India, but not an Emperor of Britain.

The British monarch arguably became an emperor after the battle of Quebec.

There is no formal definition of a British Emperor.


Whele senators and ordinary civilians could justify a war with such considerations, the official pretexts for the wars were always different.

All wars Rome conducted were officially motivated by international law.

Particular motivations being: Defending the allies (first and second Punic wars, Gallic war)

Breach of a treaty by the other party (second Punic war) Invitation by a foreign pretender to the throne to help him against his adversary (invasion of Judea) Pacification of warlike tribes (Caesar's invasions of Britain and Germany) and so on.

It should be noted that "we just will conquer you" statements are quite rare in world's history.

This is because if you use such arguments, you will experience problems in the future with concluding any treaties with other peoples, thus diplomatically unwise.

The most close possibly being Islamic conquests which were based on theological arguments.

The only (to my knowledge) province that Rome brought under its control primarily based on a resource need was Egypt.

Egypt, and to a lesser extent, north Africa, were the so-called "granary of Rome".

Egypt was a necessary supplier of grains in a time where Rome (the city) and the standing army were growing, and an increasing number of citizens was relying on handouts by politicians or the state - the so-called "plebs frumentaria".

At its apex Rome imported approximately 350000 tonnes of grains each year and 200-300 thousand citizens were living off handouts.

Egypt also offered good connections to Asian trade routes.

But if trade is considered a resource, then the Punic wars and the Hellenic wars might also be considered a resource driven assessment.

As user357320 already mentioned, the annexation of Dacia and Iberia also had some economic agendas, but that was not the main reason given at the time.

Also, here is a picture of where you find what resources:

At one point, the Romans extended the frontier in central Germania to swallow up a modest bit of land that was rich in silver mines.

IIRC this was around the time of the Emperor Domitian.

Sources:

The primary source was from The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by Edward Luttwak.

It discusses the annexation and mentions the region as securing some fertile land and supporting a friendly tribe, as well as pressing on the hostile Chatti.

It also provided a buffer for Maintz and the flank of the annexation of the Agri Decumantes to the south.

However I did find a supporting remark from Tacitus' Annals Book XI, 20, from the time of Claudius: Nor was it long before the same distinction was gained by Curtius Rufus, who had opened a mine, in search of silver-lodes, in the district of Mattium.

The profits were slender and short-lived, but the legions lost heavily in the work of digging out water-courses and constructing underground workings which would have been difficult enough in the open.

Worn out by the strain — and also because similar hardships were being endured in a number of provinces — the men drew up a private letter in the name of the armies, begging the emperor, when he thought of entrusting an army to a general, to assign him triumphal honours in advance.

Here Curtius Rufus gets triumphal ornaments by sending his troops over the border to do some quick work Silver Mining in Germany.

This is the same area that the lines would later extend out to encompass a generation or so later.

Several Roman authors criticised Roman imperialism.

Two that I am aware of include: • Sallust, De bello Iugurthino.

The book however traces Rome’s warlikeness back to inner politics, not acquisition of resources.

Caesar, De bello Gallico, 7th book.

Caesar negotiates with Vincengetorix.

In the book, Caesar criticises Roman imperialism via Vincengetorix’ speech during that negotiation.

It was always my understanding that the Roman conquests in Spain and Dacia were motivated by their respective gold and silver mines.

Question: Was there ever a case when Rome conquered a territory  solely  for the purpose of gaining control of a specific resource (spice, ore, timber, etc....)?  I'm looking for something backed up by historical evidence - e.g. a document from a military/civilian leader, a public speach etc... admitting to such motivation.  Please note that I'm only including extractable natural resources here as understood today - e.g things like slaves, extra economy, markets, waterways or strategic territory are NOT in scope.

Were there any conquests that Ancient Rome undertook explicitly to gain control of a natural resource?

Rome conquered Egypt for its resources, Spain and Dacia for their gold and silver mines and Germania for silver mines also.

There are a few examples of Roman territorial gains which may have been motivated by a need for resources, such as gold and silver in Spain, silver in Germania and other resources in Egypt.

It is believed that Rome's incursions into Egypt were motivated by need for certain resources.

It is believed that Roman conquests in Spain were driven by the desire to appropriate their gold and silver mines.

At one point, Roman took land in Germania which was rich in silver desposits.


The Epidaurus Theatre (ca. 300-340 BC), the Delphi theatre (4 th century BC) and the Odeon of Herodes Atticus (161 AD) in the Acropolis of Athens (known locally as the the Herodeon), still fulfil their original purpose, all three are constantly used as venues for various festivals .

The ancient theatre in Dion is also used occasionally.

The Colosseum (completed in 80 AD) could also qualify, while not in constant use as with the Pantheon that DVK already mentioned , it is used by the catholic church for the Via Crucis ceremony on Good Friday .

Furthermore in July 2000 the National Theatre of Greece performed Oedipus Rex in the Colosseum .

Lastly, the remains of the Temple of Hera (590 BC, destroyed by an earthquake in the 4 th century BC) in Ancient Olympia is the location where the torch of the Olympic flame for the Modern Olympics is lit.

A continuous flame was maintained at the sanctuary of the temple during the Ancient Olympics, and the temple was also the location where the olive wreaths for the victors were displayed during the games.

Pantheon in Rome (126 AD).

Most of the older buildings in the Wiki list ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_the_world ) are either not in use, or used as tombs only, or were reconstructed significantly.

The upper story of the Theater of Marcellus (ca 13 BC) in Rome is a block of apartments.

While not exactly a building, the Western Wall in Jerusalem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall ) is a site in which daily praying takes place.

It was constructed around around 19 BCE.

The Roman theatre in Caesarea .

I think is possible that only Roman buildings are still in use.

In Spain we have the Theatre of Mérida , inaugurated 15 B.C and today it is used to play Roman tragedies, and Hercules' Tower , a Roman lighthouse in A Coruña, still in use.

Stonehenge and other megalithic sites in Britain are still, or pehaps more accurately, once again used for religious purposes.

Question: What's the oldest building in the world that is still in use (i.e. used for something other than a tourist spot).

What is the oldest building in the world still in use?

The oldest known buildings in the world are the Pantheon and the Roman theatre in Caesarea.

Possible contenders for the oldest building still used for its original purpose could be the Roman theatre in Caesarea or the Pantheon in Rome.


This is an interesting question.

With the benefit of hindsight, "Russia" wasn't in a position to help Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 because the Soviet was about to implode.

The reason it probably didn't help Hussein in 2003 was that they didn't believe that President George Bush Jr. would invade Iraq; his father, Bush Sr., had declined to march on Baghdad after winning the Persian Gulf War.

But the Iraq war was a "wakeup" call to Russia; it didn't want Syria to be the next country to fall under American influence.

Not to dismiss political philosophy, but pragmatism drives most behaviors in goverment-

Russia's only warm-water port (also the only one in the Mediterranean) is in Syria.

It just got re-built.

Russia sells about $5 Billion worth of arms to Syria every year.

Syria willingly obliges Russia's pressure to confront Israel when called to do so.

"Helping Saddam" when the US invading Iraq would lead to direct military conflict with the US.

Russia was the ally of the socialist Baath party in Iraq, of which Saddam was a member.

However, the Iran-Iraq war changed this allegiance.

Since during the cold-war there were really only two poles (in military, economic, and ideological power), most countries allied with one or the other.

This ultimately became a binary decision, as allying with one would require joining that ally's international "camp".

The Baath party in Iraq had initially been enthusiastic with the deposing of their enemy, the Shah of Iran, in 1979.

However, when largely Shia Iran called for the overthrow of the minority Sunni-led Iraq, this sentiment obviously changed.

The US obviously had their own animosity towards Iran as it had overthrown

it's ally the Shah, and held Americans hostage.

The US government was more than happy to supply Iraq with arms, including biological weapons, in their bloody fight with the Iranians.

This lead to an alliance with the Americans at the expense of the Iraqi relationship with the Soviets.

While the Americans were hoping that both countries would demolish each other leading the way to weaker more controllable states, they would have much preferred the more secular government of Iraq to the anti-imperialist and militantly Islamic government of Iran.

This is why after the war, the Americans continued to arm Iraq, despite Saddam using American chemical weapons to murder the rebellious Kurdish population.

Much of the reason that the Soviet Union did little to interfere in the 1980's was due to their weakening economic situation.

When the first gulf war was initiated by the US in 1991, Russia was not in a position to resist.

Furthermore, considering that the Americans were leading the global coalition to force Saddam out of Kuwait, any military assistance provided by the Russians could be seen in a negative light by the international community.

Not to mention that any direct involvement would been seen as an act of war against the US, which would be very dangerous given the tenuous nuclear balance maintained between those countries.

The dynamics of the Cold War were such that every country outside of the Superpowers were strongly encouraged to take sides.

If you were geographically close to one of them, you often didn't have a lot of choice who that was.

However, this opened oppertunity for the less ideologically rigid (and less scrupulous) to work both sides off each other to obtain the best deal.

This is essentially what Hussein did in Iraq.

While Iran was a staunch US ally, he took support from Russia.

However, after the revolution in the 70's, he sensed an oppertunity and started taking support from the USA too.

During the Iran/Iraq war, Hussein was essentially acting as a USA client to keep Iran busy.

I believe the (stupid) idea of starting the war was entirely Hussein's, but once engaged it was definitely in the USA's interest that Iraq do as well as possible in it.

The problem with a country taking this Realpolitik attitude is when the day comes that you aren't particularly useful to either side, things can get ugly.

This is what happened to Hussein after the Iran/Iraq war ended.

It pays to develop real friends.

If we speak about the second Iraq war, Russia dealt with the case of Iraq the same way as it dealt with Syria.

They opposed the invasion and did not allow the Iraq invasion in the Security Council, but the USA just bypassed the SC.

Russia had no power and/or willingness to prevent the Iraq invasion by military means as this would mean a direct military conflict with the USA.

Regarding the first invasion in Iraq under Bush the father, there was a pro-US leadership in the USSR at the time (1991)

so they were unwilling and unable to oppose.

Also Iraq at the time invaded Kuwait which provided a better pretext for international condemnation and the anti-Iraqi UN SC resolution.

Syria is one of the few places in which Russian technology is field tested against Western technology on a regular basis.

For instance, other than North Korea, Syria has the most advanced anti-aircraft systems in the world.

This is often put to the test with Israeli jets.

In 2007 I think an Israeli jet did manage to penetrate the air defences, and just a few weeks ago a suspected Israeli jet was shot down

(it later turned out to be Turkish).

Also, Syria has an important Russian Mediterranean naval base.

Question: Wasn't Saddam an ally of Russia?  If Russia wasn't his ally, who was his ally?  Syria is looking like a strong ally of Russia as it was the case of Serbia. Russians played direct roles to save these countries.  Then what was in Saddam's mind?

Why didn't Russia help Saddam Hussein as it is helping Syria now?

Russia did not believe the US would invade Iraq and also could not risk war with the US. The had a weakend economic position and were in no position to intervene.

Russia was indeed an ally of the Ba'ath party in Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. However, during the first Gulf War, Russia had a pro-US leadership and, regardless of this, any intervention on the part of Russia to support the Iraqis would likely have led to a conflict with the USA and possibly other countries. Furthermore, it is not clear that Russia was either politically or economically in a position to enter such a conflict.

The nature of conflicts involving Saddam Hussein meant that any intervention by Russia on the side of the Iraqis would likely lead to an international conflict or at least a direct conflict with the USA.

Russia was neither economically or politically in the a position to enter into a conflict to help Saddam Hussein.

Russia was indeed an ally of the Ba'ath party in Iraq.

During the first Gulf War, there was a pro-US leadership in place in Russia.


Pedro I of Brazil declared its independence from Portugal and thus can be said to have founded the country as Brazil did not exist as an entity until its colonization by the Portuguese.

He however had to abdicate his throne due to his mismanagement of the country.

King Clovis

the I has been called " the first Frenchman ", but he was more or less ignored for long periods of French history:

In April, President Chirac instructed the government to set up a national committee to mark the 1,500th anniversary of the baptism of Clovis.

According to historians, the only other French celebration of the baptism of Clovis was in the 18th century, nine years before the legal separation of church and state.

However, Clovis soon became a heated partisan issue: A lot of people even began to suspect that the Clovis debate was becoming a displaced argument about the extreme-right-wing National Front and its leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The Front had taken up the iconography of Clovis before anyone else, and had helped put the Clovis cult back in motion...

Clovis, it turned out, had what in American politics would be called "a character problem."

Far from being a pioneering pagan-basher, was just an opportunist, who saw a way of getting papal support by triangulating himself between the heretic Arians and the pagan Alamanni....

His negatives kept going up.

He was a butcher who had killed his uncles and most of his nephews...

The left declared that Clovis was really more German than French...

( source )

Though (or perhaps because) rightist groups have tried to generate love for Clovis, in part to celebrate monarchical over republican traditions in France, Clovis remains far from universally beloved in the almost apolitical manner that most Americans venerate George Washington.

Perhaps Ataturk is an example.

Nowadays, his legacy is very much questioned in Turkey.

Russia's Boris Yeltsin is widely disrespected in Russia.

According to the questionnaire conducted by the request of IA Regnum in Voronezh in January 2012, 56% of the participants consider that he brought more harm than good.

About 31% assessed that there was about equal amount of harm and benefit, and only 9% said that he brought more benefit than evil.

Only 20% opined that he could be not that bad man in private life.

A questionnare by VTsIOM conducted by the request of state agency RIA NOVOSTI countrywide showed that only 17% of the questioned considered the deeds of Yeltsin positive, which is surpassed only by Gorbachev, whose activity is considered positive by no more than 14%.

In Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald is today often derided as drunk and corrupt, despite his many accomplishments and notwithstanding the glowing tributes in those links.

I myself am amazed that he found a compromise acceptable to the five founding provinces, and then still managed to finagle British Columbia in as well; but not all Canadians share that opinion.

Many in Quebec, and perhaps also in New Brunswick and Manitoba, still despise him for executing Louis Riel following the North-West rebellion in 1885.

Pedro I of Brazil is not venerated neither hated in Brazil.

It roots in the sui generis history of independence of Brazil, and personally of his founder and liberator.

Summarizing: Pedro

I was born in Lisbon, Portugal, 1798.

The Portuguese Court transferred to Rio de Janeiro in 1808, running away of Napoleon invasion of Iberian Peninsula.

It created the sui generis situation of the capital of a Empire residing in one of its Colony, not in the Metropolis.

His father, John VI, became King of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1816.

In 1821, when it was safe to return, John VI went back to Lisbon.

Pedro

I declared independence in 1822.

Portugal, ruled by his father, accepted independence in 1825.

The whole process of independence was, with a few exceptions, pretty peaceful compared to the process of other countries in the continent.

When his father died, in 1826, he also briefly reigned over Portugal, from 10 march to 2 may.

He abdicated the Brazilian Crown in 1831 and went back to Portugal.

He died on 1834, in Lisbon.

Therefore, despite being the de facto founder of the country, it is hard to view him as an "authentic liberator" (specially compared with the founders of the USA or Bolivar, José de San Martín, etc.), or even as an "authentic Brazilian".

In fact, despite being a national holiday, Brazilians celebrates its independence day (7 of september) way less than other countries on Americas.

Edit : it is not to say that there were not wishes of independence on Brazil.

On the contrary, Brazil had separatist and republican movements since the eighteenth century.

Another national holiday on April 21 celebrates Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, known as Tiradentes , executed as a leading member of the Minas Gerais Conspiracy , in 1792.

Another national holiday celebrates the Proclamation of the Republic, which happened November 15 (1889).

So, the ambiguous or little relevance of Dom Pedro I roots in some perception that his declaration of independence was a stratagem of the Portuguese Royal to not lose power.

Usurping the authentic wishes of independence and specially of republicanism.

Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, is an example of sort.

He was of course always glorified as the founder of the city, and even divinized, but at the same time he was a king, with some clear tyrannical tendencies, and during all the republic, and even at the beginning of the empire, this was enough for him to be considered as an example not to follow.

It is telling that Octavian, after his victory in the civil war, refused to surname of "Romulus" that some in the senate wanted to offer him (he accepted "Augustus" instead)

Question: Founders of nations are often known as the " Father of the Nation ". These people are charismatic leaders who have gone through hardship in creating a nation for the independence of their country, and in many cases have a  Cult of Personality  It is possible that founders of nations become de facto dictators by using their personality-cult. This allows them to implement various  controversial decisions  which ultimately trigger public dissatisfaction.   Is there any country where the founder of the nation is no longer respected? If so, why are they no longer respected?

Is there any country where the founder of the nation is no longer respected?

There are several exmples of this. Ataturk is not respected in this country and Boris Yeltsin is another example in Russia, as well as John A. Macdonald in Canada and Romulus, the founder of Rome.

Depending on the definition of the 'founder' of a country, there are a few examples of founders being later less respected by their countrymen. Some of these include, Ataturk, Boris Yeltsin, John A. MacDonald or Romulus.


I think the Great Depression was quite irrelevant for Germany in 1939 similarly to for other countries that took measures at state regulation.

As for the income, Germany was a well-developed industrial country with advanced technology.

It was a pioneering country at chemistry, electrical engineering, machine-tool construction, railroads and transportation, metallurgy and mining.

Its industry was known for exceptional quality.

Germany had extensive exports, which did not stop throughout the war mostly through the neutral countries.

With the German conquests German firms earned numerous advantages that maximized their income: They replaced or adsorbed the local businesses in many occupied countries

They earned the ability to use cheap forced labour of the conquered peoples Also prior to the war any strikes were outlawed in Germany so that the firms could operate without risking with workers' protests.

The recent book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly offers a new and very important look at this question.

It is the subject of an ongoing academic debate but many of the factual findings seem to be indisputable, if I understand correctly (haven't read it but read very detailed reviews).

Very brief summary: The Nazis borrowed prodigious sums to finance the re-armament of Germany, the Autobahns and the social benefits the Germans received. "

Fortunately", at the very moment the chips were due to fall and they would have had to face insolvency, they started the war and turned it into a great expopriation scheme.

That the Nazis looted all Europe and made it pay and work for the war machine is quite well-known; Ali goes into great detail showing the mechanics of the process and showing that the German was effort was to a large degree a financial pyramid, where the conquered countries and the murdered Jews were looted to pay off the deficits the Nazis had kept accruing.

He posits that the common German people were quite aware of this, grosso modo , and claims that this partly explains the tenacity with which the Germans fought to the bitter end (a claim that may not immediately follow from his economic data, as other factors, e.g. ideology, are involved).

One detail for example: they herded hundreds of thousands of Russians to work as labourers, industrial workers and domestic help in Germany; they were ostensibly paid (very low) salaries - but these salaries were stashed into a fund which nobody ever saw.

Another example: the Germans paid for goods in the countries they conquered (at least in the East) with "occupation marks" - an artificial currency whose exchange rate they loaded heavily in their own favour.

According to a recent study commissioned by the German Finance Ministry, looting of German Jewish wealth amounted to 120 billion reich marks and financed about 1/3 of the expenditure of the German armed forces during WWII.

Germany conquered and occupied a number of countries, and stripped them of their gold reserves (except in those instances where the countries were able to ship the gold abroad).

They sometimes paid in either marks, or more often, local currency, since they effectively controlled those countries' banking systems.

And in a pinch, they could requisition the supplies and labor that needed, basically at the point of a gun.

And Germany was one of the first countries to "exit" the Depression.

That was a major result of the rearmament program, which had a "pump priming" effect on the economy.

Nazis got there money by kicking out the privately owned central bank.

(Just like the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of USA, aka Central Bank).

After that Hitler printed their own money which was interest free.

within a few years Germany was the richest nation in the world while the rest of the nation were in a depression from the privately owned central banks greed.

Some US Bank and large US Companies funded the Germans in World War 2.

One of these banks,The Union Bank run by Prescott Bush owned by George Herbert Walker was seized by the U.S in 1942 for trading with the Germans.

Under The trading with the enemy act.

Mr Julius Silverstein and Mr. Gingold sued the Bush family and the United States in 2001 for profiting from the Auschwits concentration camps.

One of the reason the United States didn't get involved in World War 2 was because of US companys profits.

One company was Ford Motor Company.

I think the true answer is: money is a fiction, useful for bookkeeping, but ultimately meaningless.

What truly matters is control of resources, infrastructure and labor.

Using money is the "civilized" method of gaining that control, but if you're prepared to resort to uncivilized methods (forced labor, seizing privat property, outright conquest), you can pretty much ignore it.

See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/bitcoin-and-the-fictions-of-money/ and http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money

Not sure if it's already mentioned here, but not many people know that Nazi Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy in the years 1936-1938.

Uncontrolled investments in weaponry, social plans plus the build up of an extensive police- and army apparatus where too much for the state, which just was coming out of the deepest recession in German history until then.

After 1938 this changed of course, as occupying other countries, hence robbing their gold reserves and access to massive private (mainly Jewish) capital, meant a big boost for for them.

And let's also not forget that Germany was financially supported by very rich Americans of German and Irish (Henry Ford!)

descend.

Although this proved to be a drop on a boiling plate.

German economy only SEEMED strong, but in fact was still very weak in the 30's.

That's why I don't agree with the answer chosen as the correct one as it's not a correct answer.

Question: How did Nazi Germany finance itself during the war? They produced a large amount of war material during 1939-1945, but how was this production financed? What were Germany's revenue streams that enabled them to purchase and transport the raw materials of war and pay the workers? I doubt they were exporting goods during the war, so any revenue was likely internal to the country. Given the Depression was still going on in 1939, how did they pay for the war?

How did Nazi Germany finance itself during WW2?

The Nazis made money from the countries they occupied. They stripped them of their gold reserves and looted Europe. Their exports still continued through neutral countries. They also borrowed huge sums from some US and private banks.

The Nazis made significant financial gains as it conquered land during the war. However, it also borrowed a lot of money and looted more from its own Jewish people. Added to this that the regime continued to export to other neutral countries, the Nazi regime was more than capable of supporting itself financially.

The gains made by looting conquered peoples significantly contributed towards financially supporting the Nazi regime.

The Nazis borrowed quite a lot of money to support the regime during the war.

The Nazis took over the privately-owned central bank.

The Nazis confiscated a lot of Jewish money during and leading up to the war.

Germany's extensive exports with other neutral countries continued throughout the war.


The Scenic Theatre in North Dakota claims to be the oldest continually operating theatre on its website.

From their website footnote

The oldest continually operating theatre in America

* Based on Box Office Magazine's published article on what they credited as the oldest in America & it was 17 years newer than the Scenic Theatre.

They claim they opened in 1911.

The Newtown

Theatre also claims to be the oldest.

The Newtown Theatre has an extensive history dating back to 1831.

It is, in fact, the oldest movie theater in the United States with it's first movie being shown in 1906.

Originally built to be a hall for town gatherings and a "non sectarian" church for traveling ministers, it soon became a center of entertainment in Newtown.

If true this would make it older than the Scenic Theatre.

Both of these however, don't say whether they regularly showed movies to the public in the early days or not.

The Nickelodeon Theatre in Pittsburgh was the first genuine movie theatre in the US.

It opened in June, 1905

so you're not going to get any earlier than that.

It shut down in the 1910s, I think.

The Park Theatre in Estes Park, CO is the oldest continually operating theatre west of the Mississippi that was originally built as a motion picture theatre.

Its owners now believe that all theaters east of the Mississippi that were older and originally built to be motion picture theaters have closed down in recent years

It started playing first run pictures in June of 1913 and just upgraded to digital this year for its 100th year anniversary Sorce: former employee Additional source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Theatre_(Estes_Park,_Colorado) Also see the theatre's website: http://www.historicparktheatre.com

The Graham Opera House, now known as the State Theater, in Washington, IA has been showing movies since 1894.

At that time a local couple (Frank & Indiana Brinton) toured 35mm nitrate cellulose films and magic lantern slides around the Midwest in what were called 'Tab Shows'.

The movie industry at that time was not taken seriously and was sometimes considered questionable entertainment.

The couple were part owners of the Graham Opera House.

The Graham Opera House showed both movies and live plays/operas up through the depression.

Sorry, I do not know the exact date it switched to only showing motion pictures or when it became known as the State Theater.

The State Theater still maintains it's opera house look as it did when it was first built in the 1890's.

I am not claiming this is the oldest continuously run movie theater in the US, but I would say that it is at least in the running.

Very little is mentioned about Frank Brinton's Tab Shows online.

Here is a link from the Washington County Historical Society that mentions his "moving pictures" in the second to last paragraph--the rest of the article tells about a flying machine he made. http://washingtoncountyhistoricalsociety-iowa.org/feature4_aug_09.html

Here is another link from the Kalona News (Washington County, IA) in July 2013 mentioning the current owner of the Brinton films (which survived the past century) and how Brintons toured the Midwest.

I hope this information helps determine the oldest continuously operating movie theater in the US!

In the San Francisco bay area, California - the Roxie Cinema built in 1909 is the oldest continiously operating theater, changed it's name 7 times starting with the name of C. H. Brown Theater in 1933 the name changed to the Roxie to this day.

Another theater in the bay area in the town of Vallejo (V-Town),

Ca.

as it is known is the Empress Theater.

Opened in 1911 with the Empress name and today it has the same name. http://www.empresstheatre.org/empress-history.aspx

The Ruby Theatre in Chelan, Washington was built as a movie theatre by the Kingman brothers and opened in 1914.

It has operated as a movie theatre since than.

It is privately owned and continues to shown first run films.

It has recently installed digital equipment in anticipation of its 100th birthday next year.

Its auditorium is essentially the same as when it was constructed.

It was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in about 1990.

The Ruby is believed to be the oldest continuously running movie theatre in the Northwest.

Source: Rubytheatre.com

Yes, It was originally thought that the building housing the Priest Theatre, and built in 1910, was a storage facility for automobiles and not used as a theatre until 1926.

However, during a campaign to do a required upgrade to digital projection, it was discovered during a history search of the building (via artifacts and articles found) that the theatre building has been used a a theatre since it's construction in 1910.

A link to the kickstarter campaign they used for the building fundraising is included below.

It has the complete updated history of the building.

The Minor Theater, located at 1015 H Street in Arcata, California, is one of the oldest buildings in the United States built for feature films that is still open and showing movies.

It was the first building in Humboldt County to be built as a "true movie theater." From Wikipedia

I had worked at the Newtown Theatre for a bit

and yes it has shown movies since 1906.

A couple years back for our 100th year anniversary we actually went back and found all the newspaper clippings of the movies we showed.

The oldest OPERATING cinema is in Ottawa, Kansas.

The Plaza showed its first movie in 1905 and is still running today.

I would know, I live here and watch movies here almost every weekend.

They also have a museum that was opened in 2013 to show the history behind it.

Question: It appears from Wikipedia that the oldest theater in continuous use is in Denmark, but since so much of the film industry is dominated by Hollywood, I was wondering what is the oldest movie theater in the United States.

What is the oldest movie theater in the US that has been in continuous use as a movie theater?

There is some debate about the oldest theater in the United States. Some say it is the Scenic Theater in North Dakota while others think it is the Nickelodeon Theatre in Pittsburgh.

There is no clear answer to this question since a number of theatres make such a claim, including the Scenic Theatre in North Dakota and the Nickelodeon Theatre in Pittsburgh.


I think, it depends on the definition of a road.

Most old roads will start as a path trail, later it will be paved.

Maybe it will decline and become again a trail.

I think some of the oldest roads will be a mountain pass.

An example

: The Brenner Pass in the Alps was already used in the stone age ( Ötzi was found nearby).

Damascus, in southwestern Syria, is widely believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world .

Therefore, it's not a stretch to suggest that the city of Damascus has the oldest road in the world .

A road that would also meet the following criteria.

System of paving 2.

Continual upkeep 3.

Continual control by a city 4.

Continuous use, from construction to present day Damascus Straight Street is the Roman street Decumanus Maximus and dates at least as far back as the first century AD.

In Roman times, Straight Street was 26 meters wide and 1,570 meters long, lined on both sides with covered porticos containing shops.

The present road follows the same line, starting at Bab Sharqi in the East, crossing the whole width of the ancient city of Damascus , and coming out at the end of Suq Madhat Pasha, 20 meters to the North of Bab al-Jabiya on the western side.

However , the present road is narrower than the ancient one, and via upkeep about 4 meters above its original level.

Italy's Appian Way began construction in 312 BCE.

It is still in use, at least as a bicycle path.

I am not certain whether any of the current material could be dated to the original construction.

Links: Wikipedia ; New York Times (reg.

req.).

I would vote for Grand Trunk Road .

EDIT: I just learned about the Ridgeway , in England.

Over 5,000 years old and still in use.

Tripodon Street, in Plaka, Athens, has been used continuously since 500 B.C

Question: My suspicions are that a road in Rome, Italy, likely has a strong claim, or perhaps a road in Egypt. It just needs to be a road that has been in continuous use for traffic, whether it was some form of vehicle or pedestrian, through the present day.  Per the concerns raised by some of the comments the requirements are:  regular upkeep, some sort of system of paving, some sort of control over the road by a city.

What is the oldest road in the world that has been in continuous use?

Some suggestions are the Grand Trunk Road and Tripodon Street in Athens that has been in use since 500 BC.

The answer to this question will depend on the definition of a road. However, possible answers could be the Grand Trunk Road or Tripodon Street in Plaka, Athens.

The answer to this question will depend on what is considered a road.

Possible answers to this question could include the Grand Trunk Road or Tripodon Street in Plaka, Athens.


Scotland was "ruled" by Edward Long Shanks, then under Robert the Bruce became free.

In 1707, Scotland opted to join with England.

The group chosen to discus the acts of union were chosen by a pro union Duke of Queensberry, and were mostly pro union.

Another case I remember reading was about Eadric Streona .

He was a traitor for both the English and the Danes.

He joined Knut against the English, then joined the English against the Danes in the battle of Battle of Assandun .

During that battle, he deserted and joined the Danes again, securing their victory.

When England was under Knuts thumb, Knut, who knew the Eadric was not trust-worthy, had him executed.

This example might not be what you are looking for, because Eadric didn't switch sides because of a scene of loyalty or necessity, but rather for monetary and power gain.

Also, Eadric wasn't a king of a country, but rather the Alderman of Mercia, the equivalent of an earl.

(earl came into use after Knut appointed Jarls, but the English couldn't pronounce Jarl, and so said earl.)

On the other hand Mercia was still very much a separate entity, and an earldom was very much a sovereign power

thanks the the decentralizing effect of feudalism.

A textbook example of this occurred in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia in 1979.

The country had been effectively independent for 14 years.

A whites-only government had unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965.

But in December 1979, as part of the deal by which transition to majority rule was to take place, the Rhodesian parliament voted itself out of existence .

Power was handed back to London and an old-style colonial governor (in the considerable shape of Lord Soames) was despatched to Africa to take over.

The flag of British Rhodesia reverted to the Union Flag (with Rhodesian arms) instead of the flags (predominantly the green-white-green tricolor) which had been flown by the de facto independent states of Rhodesia and (briefly) Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

It was always intended to be a temporary arrangement, to allow for free and fair elections to take place.

The elections were held a few months later and independence was duly celebrated in Zimbabwe in April 1980.

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba are Netherlands Antilles islands which have rejoined the Netherlands following the breakup of the Netherlands Antilles as a country.

The other 3 Antilles islands have opted for nationhood, although still as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Some time after the unification of China by Qin, Ren Xiao and Zhao

Tuo were sent to colonise the barbarian region of Nanyue around present day Guangzhou.

Zhao Tuo succeeded Ren Xiao around the time when revolts began to occur against Qin, eventually signalling Nanyue's independence by declaring himself King and raiding surrounding provinces.

When Liu Bang reunited China, the diplomat Lu Jia persuaded Zhao Tuo to submit to Han, although he retained his title of King.

However, after Liu Bang's death, his widow Empress Lü cut off trade in iron goods with Nanyue, as a result of which Zhao Tuo declared himself Emperor of Nanyue, dispatching troops to attack Han and sending bribes to nearby chiefs to encourage them to switch allegiances.

Empress Lü sent troops to attack him but disease led to the failure of the mission.

After Empress Lü's death, Emperor Wen took the throne.

Once more, Lu Jia persuaded Zhao Tuo to submit to Han, renouncing his title of Emperor and returning to being King.

In 1860 the Dominican Republic, some 15 years after independence and in turmoil, asked to be readmitted to the Spanish Empire .

It seems that debts and the threat of invasion prompted the request, which was readily agreed to by the Spanish.

The relationship quickly broke down and the territory was soon in revolt.

Spain was unable to reassert control and within five years the country was again independent.

The British colony of Newfoundland became a mostly independent dominion in 1907.

In 1933, facing crushing dept in the Great Depression, Newfoundland seems to have become mostly a British Colony again while ruled by the Commission.

In 1948 the citizens voted in a referendum to become part of Canada instead of continuing under Britain, or regaining independence.

Some wanted to join the United States but Britain and Canada kept that off the ballot.

Persons more expert on Newfoundland history may want to confirm or deny or clarify my impression that an independent Newfoundland agreed in 1933 to become some sort of British possession again.

Question: Is there any country(former colony) in the world that fought for/obtained independence and then again tried to join its colonist ruler?  I guess an African country did so.   Can anyone tell me?

Is there any country(former colony) in the world that obtained independence and then again tried to join its colonist ruler?

Zimbabwe, islands in the Antilles and the Dominican Republic have all fought for independence before rejoining their old nation.

There a few examples of this occuring, including Zimbabwe, the Netherlands Antilles islands and the Dominican Republic. The exact reasons in each case are less clear.


The Nazi Party destroyed the political apparatus of the working class, broke the trade union movement, and handed the economy over to German capitalist monopolies.

"Socialism" in the mind of the NSDAP involved either the SA's street fighting fantasy of a German nation recast in the image of the right wing worker; or, the NSDAP's central apparatus' conception of a pliant breeding nation.

"Socialism" was for the NSDAP the forced mobilisation of the ethnic nation.

Many Germans at the time, particularly right wing Germans, associated these values with a Bismarkian right wing policy that had been called "Socialism," in the sense of state provided goods and services.

To take political advantage of this feeling, the NSDAP named itself "National Socialist."

The NSDAP did not hope for the abolition of capitalism, nor for workers' control.

In addition to this economic position, the NSDAP wished to reunify their imaginary German nation by force; impose a German order on Europe through war; and to eliminate their imaginary racial "other."

These combination of policies are considered "right wing."

Ordinary socialism, in the sense of workers' control of production, was considered left wing at the time.

The same reason the "Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea" is a democratic republic...

It wasn't.

There was a time when socialism really seemed like the way forward, tempering free enterprise with thoughtful regulation and investing workers in the means of production.

So non-socialists like the Nazis and Communists called themselves socialist to appeal to the political moderates of the interwar period.

In the modern day, anyone who equates socialism with either Nazi-brand Fascism or Soviet-brand Communism is a political propagandist, usually affiliated with right-wing US interests.

It wasn't socialist, and in fact was vehenmently opposed to actual socialists/communists.

The Reichstag Fire was one of the causes for Nazi party to grab power and was sold as the beginnings of a communist uprising.

Socialism was not considered right wing in 1930s Europe.

(Remember in the USA "Socialist" is used as a dirty word.

In Europe this is not the case ('Socialist Party' is 2nd largest in European Parliament, etc.).

That can colour a debate about the word).

Pleanty of countries call themselves things, it doesn't mean they are those things.

Like "Democratic Republic of Korea", etc.

The "Nazi" Party STARTED OUT as the National Socialist German Workers Party, with a left-leaning, socialist bent.

That is, until it enrolled "Member Number 7,

" aka Adolf Hitler, who had other ideas.

A World War

I veteran, Hitler figured out the the "Dolchstoss" legend, the idea that Germany had been winning World War I until it was "stabbed in the back" by Hitler's enemies, plus re-armament/revanche, was more appealing to most German people than the idea of a "worker's paradise.

This was particularly true of the right wing, where Hitler drew most of his financial support.

In fact, the Nazi party at one time had two wings, a nationalist wing under Hitler and a socialist wing under Gregor Strasser, who considered himself a personal friend of Hitler's.

That is, until Hitler took over the party, and later murdered his "friend" Strasser during the "Night of the Long Knives."

It sounded good for marketing purposes, for engaging the average industrial worker without the revolutionary baggage of Communism.

It is important to understand that when it comes to statism , right and left don't matter that much.

While they will give different reasons why they're chaining you down, enslaving you or murdering you and there may be different people wielding the bludgeon or the gun, the end result is the same.

In other words, meet the new boss, same as the old boss .

I think that Nazi regime was unique in world history in that it unlike any other regime before and after had two faces: it externally pretended to be a left-center force, a left-centrist socialist pro-workers, progressive, industrialist, anti-monarchist, anti-religious, pro-women rights, pro-animal rights, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist, anti-colonialist party.

But in reality it turned out that Nazism was actually far more right than any monarchists, Russian "black-hundreds" and conservatives were before.

It was hiding its ultra-right face for a while to achieve popular support.

This duality led to many mistakes by individuals and politicians who made deals with Nazi party and Nazi Germany.

German Cristians thought they are dealing with a centrist patriotic party when voting for enabling act.

Vatican thought Hitler is quite like Mussolini: a moderately conservative centrist.

Stalin thought he was dealing with a left-center party of small bourgeoisie.

Ethnic minorities also thought Nazis are pro-national self-determination and cultural autonomy.

Many Jews saw that Nazis for a first time in 2000 years allowed Jews to have their own police, ambulance service, postal service, orphanages, and even telephone stations.

They did not knew the orphanages and hospitals were designed to quickly separate those unable to work.

Nobody could imagine Nazis will kill people in new shining uniforms they just designed for Jewish police (no other regime gives a forage cap with a badge to a condemned enemy).

Many Russians and Ukrainians believed Germans will build a moderate form of Socialism without collectivization and other excesses of Soviet Union.

Many Germans believed that Nazis really protect animal rights for ethical reasons, not just to make a ban on Jewish meat.

In reality it turned out that even conservative clergymen looked like Bolshevicks compared to Nazis.

This masquerade became possible because Hitler departed from earlier tradition typical for ultra-right, volkishe movements.

Initially he was even criticized from the far-right positions for even use of the word "party" instead of traditional for the right-wing "league" "movement" or "union".

But Hitler was smarter.

He abandoned monarchism in favor of unrestricted ultimate dictatorship.

He pursued clergy because they were too left for him and Christian principles were too egalitarian and not enough anti-Semitic, although historically religious Christians were the most anti-Semitic group.

He denounced aristocracy and social estates in favor of eugenics.

He denounced right-wing to promote ultra-right instead.

Question: The Nazi Party stands for the  National Socialist German Workers' Party  ( Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ), which sounds like a name for a communist party, why is it considered a far-right party? Isn't it a far-left party, or was socialism considered to be far-right at the time?

If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist?

The Nazi party presented itself as a socialist party but was in fact vehemently opposed to its ideals. It was a good way to attract industrial workers in the beginning.

The actual answer to this question is that the Nazi party was not socialist. Socialism was considered to be left-wing at the time and the party used the term 'socialist' as a marketing tool.

The Nazi party used the word 'socialist' as a way to garner support.

Socialism was not considered to be right-wing at the time.


Personally, I don't think anything ever went particularly "wrong" with India.

They only fell behind the civilizations of Western Europe, not the rest of the world.

So the proper question to ask here is what suddenly went right with heretofore backward Europe.

To my mind the answer to this question is clear: The printing press.

Nearly overnight Europeans had access to several orders of magnitude more knowledge than they had before (and than anyone still relying on slow, error prone, and expensive hand-copying could possibly have).

The discourse this allowed would have had a self-multiplying effect.

The difference would be like somebody from the 1800's (or even the 1970's) trying to compete for knowledge with today's internet society.

There's just no hope for them, no matter how smart they may be.

Every culture and civilization goes through ups and downs.

To assume that: There was a homogenous Indian civilization

It was for any length of time constantly on the up or even "better" than others

Certain expressions of advancement from certain locales mean "Indian" technology was universally more advanced would be a very narrow view.

This denies Grecian, Mesopotamian, Persian and European achievements, Industrial Revolution, and just so much more.

So what slice of time are we talking about when we discuss decline?

That keeps happening everywhere.

Greece isn't what it used to be, neither is Mesopotamia.

Rise and fall are natural cycles.

Only In the short run we can attribute causes.

As in "what were the factors that led to the fall of the Magadhan(/Roman) Empire?"

Hmmm, in my point of view, Our ancestors never taught those technologies in written form.

The people who learned some technology don't want to teach that outside their family.

From British period we just started to read Europe's history as our indian history.

For example "Vasco da gama discovered india".

We people started to thought US and Euro only has the technologies.

:( Thats it...:)

As late as the 18th century, India had a cotton industry that was at least as advanced as the European textile industry.

But when England conquered most of the country, she felt that it was too competitive with her woolens industry.

So England taxed India's cotton industry and otherwise prevented it from developing.

Same with a number of other industries in the country.

Instead, under "mercantilism," India was made to produce raw, not finished goods.

So colonization appears to be the culprit.

I think the main reasons are demolition of Takshashila and Nalanda universities.

Indians were never good at scientific method to begin with.

Scientific method aka challenging/testing/

advancing existing knowledge by peers and verification using experiments was never popular.

Most of the glory lies in individual brilliance/theories/work that was passed down as facts and absolute truths, which does not help in advancing knowledge.

Most of the Indian scientific works survive intact unchanged today because of the lack of challenges/advancing of these works by others.

This is due to the Indian psyche of not challenging ideas/elders and the inherent need to maintain status quo.

While the threats of invasion, colonization, destruction of centers of learning like nalanda/taxilla etc are true, the greatest culprit is that Indians rest on past accomplishments instead of moving to the next thing and advancing what is already known.

Indians sucked at scientific method of any kind, so development of science never happened beyond the initial work of some savant in their respective fields.

This would certainly be linked to the Turkish and Mughal conquest of the subcontinent.

In pre-medieval India, the academia was heavily dependent on royal patronage, as the Brahmin and Buddhist scholars were attached by occupation to the court.

In this period, there had been various mathematical and philosophical advances though there seems to have been a dearth of equipment and tools required for experiment that are fundamentally important to the development of the scientific method.

Also, as the accepted answer points out, the printing press which enormously fueled the scientific revolution in the West, was absent in the present case.

With the arrival of the Muslims 1 however, royal patronage to the indigenous academia ceased; and later (to a minimal extent) replaced by scholars of Central Asian origin.

If an active interest in indigenous intellectual institutions were taken by these rulers, I think the scenario would have been markedly different.

Therefore, the reason for the lack of scientific development in the subcontinent may have not been that it "lagged-behind" as much as that there was discontinuity and in fact a total cessation of the thousand year old tradition of Indian scientific 2 thought.

A loose term used here to denote the succession of Central Asian empires that entered the subcontinent. 2 Denoting here the various fields of study that might have led to the development of a scientific method.

The advancement of the 'scientific progress' of a society is largely contingent upon the society's ability to create new inventions and integrate them into their society.

India's rigid caste system and the adoption of dharma, or 'duty,' into Indian society fit new members of society into specific roles without regards to their innate talents or interests and discouraged scientific progress.

The highest ranking members of the caste, the 'brahmin' (priests) and 'ksatriyah' (warriors) had virtually no need for scientific inventions or research except for potentially firearms and so had no incentive to encourage scientific study among the other castes.

The caste system, I would argue, was India's greatest limitation with respect to scientific innovation and research throughout its history.

Question: India had been among the "leaders" in scientific research spanning Mathematics, Medicine, Chemistry and others.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent  Controversial theories of nuclear technology in 1000 BC aside, India's leadership role is true when we talk about the "BC" era and maybe up to 1000 AD.  What went wrong after that? Is the colonization the only reason for India's seeming downfall in scientific advancements?

What went wrong with India's scientific development as a society?

India never excelled at scientific development. The caste system was a limitation to innovation and there was a lack of teaching. The demolition of Takshashila and Nalanda universities were also reasons.

The answer to this question is likely to be subjective and include multiple factors. Some people would argue that Indian scientific endeavour was never particularly strong and others would argue that it didn't ever get worse but that other regions outpaced it. Other possible reasons for stunted scientific advancement incude invasion by other cultures, the demolition of Takshashila and Nelanda universities, the caste system or even the lack of literacy. In any case, it would be fair to say that every culture and civilization has been through positive and negative periods throughout history.

Some people might argue that Indian science was never particularly advanced and that Indian civilisation was not good at advancing beyond what had been discovered.

One possible reason could have been the fact that knowledge was not shared effectively throughout Indian society.

Some would argue that India didn't do anything wrong. It's merely that other regions had more success scientifically.

The demolition of Takshashila and Nalanda universities may have contributed to India's scientific downfall.

The caste system may have limited India's ability to produce great thinkers who made new discoveries.

Invasions by other cultures could have thwarted some of India's scientific progress.

Every civilization goes through periods of ascent and decline.


Quite a few of them, especially in Central and South America.

Here are lists of attempted and successful coups d'etat, listed by date in the former, by nation in the latter.

The 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile seems to fit the criteria you outline.

A democratically elected president of a Western country ousted by the military.

The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a watershed event of the Cold War and the history of Chile.

Following an extended period of social and political unrest between the conservative-dominated Congress of Chile and the elected socialist President Salvador Allende , Allende was overthrown in a coup d’état.

The junta was composed of the heads of the Air Force, Navy, Carabineros (police force) and the Army , though Pinochet eventually arose to supreme power within a year after the coup, formally assuming the presidency in late 1974.

Pinochet later assumed power and ended Allende's elected Popular Unity government, instigating a campaign of terror on its supporters which included the murder of former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier.

Before Pinochet's rule, Chile had for decades been hailed as a beacon of democracy and political stability in a South America plagued by military juntas and Caudillismo.

Poland - ("Zamach majowy" - May coup )

- parliamentary democracy from 1918, successful coup d'etat of Józef Piłsudski in May 1926, and then authoritarian rule of Piłsudski's party up to 1939.

Britain, dictatorship 1653-1658 France, absolute monarchy until 1789, then dictatorship (1799), absolute empire (1804), again monarchy (1814), then dictatorship (1848) and absolute empire again (1852). Germany, absolute monarchy (1871-1918), then dictatorship (1933) Spain, absolute monarchy before 1873, restoration of monarchy by a coup (1874-1931), dictatorship 1936-1975 Finland, dictatorship 1939-1945 Italy, dictatorship (1922) Note that regimes which were not mentioned as dictatorships are not necessarily democratic either.

Rather a lot of Western European countries spent the modern era vascilating between Democratic and Authoritarian governments.

This is common enough that it is common when talking about the modern history of said countries to refer to a period as either "The nth Republic" or "The nth Monarchy/Empire/Reich/Whatever".

Countries in this boat include Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, etc.

I would characterize the 1973 overthrow of Chile's Salvador Allende by GENERAL Augosto Pinochet as an example of a "military takeover of a democracy in the western world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende Chile was a western democracy in 1973.

People might debate as to whether or not it was "advanced."

Question: Ignoring the Spanish 1981 and Greek 1967 coups.  Are there any other examples of the military attempting (or even managing) to overthrow an elected government in an advanced democracy in the western world (W-Europe, Japan, Canada, USA)?  The only example I can remember reading about is the  1933 Business plot .  Another example is the Algerian coup against de Gaulle in 1961.

Has there ever been an attempted military takeover of a democracy in the western world?

There were many examples of this in South America such as the Pinochet coup in Chile in 1973. There was also the May coup in Poland.

The most recent example of this might be the Pinochet coup in Chile in 1973. However, throughout recent and most distant past, there have been a number of coup attempts across Central and Southern America and Europe, including Poland, Spain and Finland.

Whilst there have been a number of examples of this in Central and South America, the most recent clear answer to this question would likely be the Pinochet coup in Chile in 1973

There have been a number of military coups across European countries both in recent and more distant past.


Geoffrey Blainy, one of Australia's greatest historians, dedicated about 2 pages or so to a chapter entitled The Paradox of Isolation .

He said that places like the USA or Australia advance slowly in the beginning because they are isolated: they don't trade with anyone, they don't share inovation with anyone, they don't even have the need to innovate, because innovation is only sparked when it is necessary.

However, at the same time, Blainy also said that isolation, though in the beginning can be hampering, is helpful in the long run, because an isolated nation cannot be attacked, just like Great Britain and the Channel.

What I am trying to get at is that America's isolation was its salvation.

In both world wars, America was able and willing to stay neutral for a long long time, and as a result, spent less and earned more on the wars than Europe did.

Another example is Great Britain.

During the 1800s, Britain persued isolationist policies, and was the greatest empire on earth.

By WW1, Great Britain was unable to persue isolation; Germany was building up its navy, and Britain was unable to maintain the two-power standard and was on the decline.

Nowadays, America's isolation is not guaranteed.

America has so many obligations around the world that if there is a war, America will be involved.

Nor does the USA have isolation from economic problems.

Some might even venture to say that the USA is at the beginning of its decline.

Based on the evidence, it seems that isolation is one of the many building factor of a great nation; America and Britain both succeeded because of isolation, and both seem to or have fallen because of loss of isolation.

GDP per capita growth before and after WW2

:Note the sudden rise at around 1940.

The United States is one of the five largest countries in the world by area.

The others are Russia, Canada, China, and Brazil.

Of these five, the United States has the largest amount of land in temperate, agriculturally and industrially suitable climates.

Russia and Canada are (mostly) too far north, China and Brazil have much larger proportions of deserts or jungles.

The United States is also one of the five largest countries in the world by population.

The others include China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan.

Brazil and Russia are sixth and seventh.

It is for these reasons, that the "BRIC" countries are now important, as potential challengers to the U.S. Of these, only China can beat the U.S. in both population and land area (India also has a respectable, but not matching land area).

For now, at least, the quality of the U.S. population is better; richer, better educated, more entrepreneurial, etc.

America is an immigrant country that has (generally) attracted the "best and brightest" from abroad.

China and Russia, have been "closed" countries that have repelled foreign ideas, putting them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis

the U.S. Brazil seems like a smaller version of "America," and India, an English-speaking country, has more (but poorer) people on a smaller land area.

The world is now moving toward a "convergence.

" Given its natural advantages, America will long be at least a "contender.

" It's not clear how long we'll remain number one.

At the end of World War II not only the British and French colonial empires ended, but also France and Britain were dependent and had a huge economical debt towards USA.

During the decades that followed, the United States offered good opportunities to skilled professionals in all the world, and also to not skilled ones.

That includes researchers, engineers, doctors, and many other professions that did not have the possibility to emerge in their own country.

Even in 2005 it had the highest immigrant population .

US also has the highest military spending, fact that allows to influence the politics of other countries from which they buy raw materials.

This made many people use the term American Empire.

Later it was the center of the transformation of economy due to new informatic technologies, internet and e-commerce.

In the latest decades US companies started outsourcing industrial production to China and services, like call centres and computer software development, to India.

The USA is the world's strongest country because of its military force.

And it is the most advanced military force because it has the most advanced fundamental science.

And it has the most advanced fundamental science because America inherited it from Germany which had been devastated.

Germany was the most advanced nation since about 800 when Holy Roman Empire was formed.

And in 1930s most German scientists just moved to the USA, similarly to how Roman scientists moved to Germany in 9th century.

Historically (and I'm stealing heavily from Stratfor.com), USA was in an enviable position of combining: economy-friendly geography (large interconnected navigable rivers systems, great safe ports, agriculture-friendly lands) militarily-friendly (post 1870s)

world position (no heavy military threat from east or west and pretty much none from the north)

Economic-growth friendly policies (immigration relying on self-selection; lower taxes; lower regulation).

Question: The USA has been the world's strongest country for a long time now.  Even after the rise of China as one of the dominant economies in the world, the USA is still the world's top economy.  Does the USA just happen to be the world's strongest economy, or are there any historical traits involved?

Why is the USA the world's strongest country?

The US is one of the largest countries in the world and has a strong military. It has an immigrant population that has always attracted the best and brightest from abroad as well as a relatively isolationist home policy.

There are a number of reasons why the USA might be considered the world's strongest country or economy. Firstly, it is one of the world's five biggest, both in terms of land mass and population. Furthermore, it has a very strong military and has had a welcoming policy towards talented immigrants who are likely to further enhance its economic success.

The USA's strength counld be due to its isolationist history.

The USA is one of the five largest countries in the world.

The USA has the a strong military force.

The USA has one of the five largest populations in the world.

The USA has generally welcomed talented immigrants.


Fire-hardened spears, hardwood clubs and maces and shark-tooth "swords" were pretty much state-of-the-art for both Aboriginal and Polynesian cultures.

The Polynesians had the advantage of advanced stonemasonry and oceanic navigation, neither of which would do them much good in a war of conquest, the native Australians had a spear-thrower, the woomera, which vastly improves the range and power of a thrown spear.

More, Polynesian wars were mostly local affairs, precipitated by cultural conflicts and resource allocation rather than wars of conquest.

The Europeans had steel, gunpowder, horses and ships capable of carrying immense loads of cargo and troops, and a will to conquer and claim anything they found.

Completely different ballgame.

As for Austronesian people, like Indonesians, it is difficult to answer.

I can really only speculate: The trade winds were very strongly against them (see: this map )

The Maritime SE Asian cultures really only interacted with others from the same culture group, unless for trade Australians and New Guineans of the time had neither spices nor mineral or metal goods, so trade missions (and perhaps colonies) were considered futile.

People from what is modern day Indonesia were visiting northern Australia to collect and process trepang (sea-cucumber or sea slug) for centuries before European settlement.

These people are generally referred to as Macassan (or Makassan).

The first European to circumnavigate Australia, Matthew Flinders, encountered Macassans processing trepang.

Relationships with the Aboriginal people were mostly positive as the Macassans stayed for a few months per year and returned home as the winds changed to trade their product with the Chinese.

This information has been extensively documented Gordon McLaughlan claims that pre-Moari Polynesian navigators (referred to as Lapita) "landed on the coast of Australia but encountered an alien landscape and long-established inhabitants" (p.18 - A Short History of New Zealand - Penguin, 2004).

I have no idea as to whether this claim is supported by the historical record or whether it is simply an assumption based on the incredible sea-faring exploits of the Lapita.

Australia was a lot less hospitable area than Polynesians, Indonesians, and other islanders were used to.

Although technically in the tropics, the fact that people lived on islands meant that the sea was a moderating influence on the climate, and "temperate" weather crops such as breadfuirt and sweet potatoes could grow on them.

Also, the sea provided a ready source of fish.

Not so Australia, which being continental, had a less temperate climate.

Jungles were thicker, crops scarcer, and food harder to find.

As mentioned in other answers above, the "Australians" had more potent weapons, probably because of the need to hunt mammals, rather than fish.

It's possible that Pacific Islanders found themselves in Australia from time to time.

Most probably did not survive.

Perhaps a few survivors were absorbed into the local populations.

What did NOT happen was people visiting Australia, leaving, and then saying, "Let's go back there with the friends and family.

I can only agree with some of the points, as I have an extensive understanding of Austronesian migratory history but am still vague on Australasian.

My only contribution is to add that Australia was not so much a lost continent but rather a vast and imposing one which was not entirely cut of from southern migration.

It was part of PNG during the ice age and the two land masses share a common genus.

Migrants still continued to flow in to Australia but in small groups who simply blended into the existing population.

In the southern regions there is evidence that many of the aboriginal population have cultural and ethnic ties to their Southern roots as fishermen and canoe building coastal communities.

However Lapita and other Austronesian's were strictly a island colonizing coastal peoples who had specific destinations in mind, isolated unpopulated small land masses which they could farm and colonize.

Culturally

and ethnically they integrated with existing trading communities such as PNG and probably the southern western coastal parts of Australia but a large land mass

had very little appeal to their mindset.

Obviously, groups in Indonesia were trading and taking resources from coastal Australia but were more interested in their own regional concerns and had no particular drive to colonize this harsh and seemingly desolate interior that was probably inhabited by territorial tribal groups of people.

It seems strange to me that such a small divide between Indonesia and Australia would have such little momentum in terms of their contact but little was coming out of Australia as opposed to the vast trade network that had formed from the Southern trade roots and their spice empires.

It's not so much about land as trade it would seem, which makes sense but perhaps more historical evidence will be discovered.

The austronesian were great mariners and this brought them to far corner of the globe as far as Easter island and Madagascar.

But why not Australia which lies south of Indonesia?

I think the most plausible answer is because its already inhabited and when austronesian made landings, to Australia, it was by chance and composed of a handful of individuals.

They stood little chance against the hostile aborigines even if they possessed superior weaponry.

Furthermore Australia is a large island, any subsequent waves of chance landings would have occurred far apart from each others and not making it possible for the austronesian to form meaningful numbers to compete against the aborigines as compared to uninhibited islands.

These earlier austronesian would have been outnumbered and decimated.

I agree that scattered Austronesian landings on the big island continent may well have prevented this culture from building up any significant numbers to thrive.

But I don't think it would be due to any hostility of Aborigines that they wouldn't.

I'd say that the locals would expect some sort of compensation like seafood, for the imposition on their lands, and this kind of arrangement over time could have lead to intermarriages and the Austronesians blending in with the aborigines.

Future DNA studies may be able to answer this.

Australia was colonised by people from New Guinea while the two islands were still joined (up to 25,000 years ago).

Evidence of human habitation in eastern New Guinea dates back to 40,000 years.

The negroid ie small frizzy haired people were the first Australians.

Their remnants can be found in the rainforests of northern Queensland and in Tasmania.

Question: Australia hosted aboriginal populations since prehistory. However technologically advanced civilizations (in comparison) lived nearby, in Indonesia, Polynesia and New Guinea.  Why was it not colonized by those people? Is there any evidence of interaction/invasions?

Why did Austronesian/Polynesian people not colonize Australia?

There may well have been landings from time to time but the country is so large that it prevented groups from forming. People from Indonesia practiced sea cucumber fishing in northern Australia for centuries before European settlement. They had no particular drive to colonise and had their own, local concerns. Australia was also very inhospitable compared to other parts of Asia.

The answer to this question will be subjective, but there are a number of reasons that Polynesian peoples didn't colonise Australia. Firstly, they were unlikely to have had sufficient numbers to make a successful colonisation attempt. Furthermore, there didn't seem to be much in terms of trade or anything enticing to encourage them to make a colonisation effort. As a side note, it seems there is evidence of New Gineau colonisation of Australia, but this would have been around 25,000 years ago.

Whilst its possible that the Pacific Islanders found themselves in Australia, the main reason that they are unlikely to have attempted to colonise it would be a lack of numbers.

There is plenty of evidence of trade between the Pacific Islanders, Indonesia and Australia.

There is evidence of colonisation by people from New Guinea over 25,000 years ago.

It seems that there was very little enticing other nearby civilisations to colonise Australia given the lack of trade and the hostility of the continent.