The answer is yes.

You can use John MacFarlane's Pandoc to directly generate EPUB 2 or EPUB 3 from markdown.

Leanpub.com accepts Markdown only from authors.

They use some extensions like tables or source code embedding to take most of the pain away.

Markdown doesn’t offer such a fine control like TeX/LaTeX, but most ebook readers wouldn’t honor that anyway.

You can take a look at the free samples ( example ) to judge the result.

I think, yes, Markdown is an excellent format to write ebooks.

Yes, I think it may be used and, in my opinion, it makes it easier to layout and format the whole text.

There are tools that allow you to type using Markdown and do export to epub and mobi formats among others.

One example of such tools is Draft UPDATE:

I have recently edited and published a book using Markdown and the gitbook project.

It worked perfectly.

I will do it again!

Markdown does not seem to have many formatting options, but it looks like it is being used for creating ebooks, since there seem to be many books about creating ebooks from markdown from a google search.

An example blog: http://ianhocking.com/2013/06/22/writing-a-novel-using-markdown/

Markdown is an excellent shortcut to HTML, especially for non-technical writers and editors.

Some publishing services (Leanpub, Gitbook, PenFlip and others) make the most of this.

The drawback with most markdown-based publishing services currently is that they use flavours of markdown that don't support classes (technically, 'attribute definitions' for elements).

That is, you can't use classes to distinguish, say, an epigraph from a dedication, or a normal blockquote from a 'box' blockquote.

Without classes, you cannot reproduce the typography required for high-quality books more complex than a novel.

For attribute support, the best flavour of markdown to use is probably kramdown.

Jekyll, and therefore GitHub Pages, support kramdown by default.

I use Jekyll to create book-ready HTML from markdown for clients, using this workflow we developed for our own book-production work.

Used with Sigil for ebook assembly and PrinceXML for PDF output, we're producing book interiors as good as anything we get from InDesign.

Markdown is fine for most common textual purposes, but if you are creating complex material, or material which you want to re-use for other purposes, you might want to look at one of the many XML formats.

Both DocBook and TEI are in extensive use in publishing for complex work, but at the moment you still need to learn how XML works in order to use an XML editor properly.

There are many toolchains for turning XML into EPUB and other formats.

In general, it's better to have the master file in a powerful and comprehensive format, so that leaner or simpler formats can be generated from it.

If you use something too lean for the master format (and Markdown tends towards the lean end of the spectrum), you risk running out of steam when you need to do something difficult or complex.

I have used Markdown to create content, then used Pandoc to convert that content into ePub format for reading on iBooks.

Markdown does not have a lot of layout features compared to LaTeX. If you want something fast and quick for images, simple tables and text, Markdown will work great.

If your intent is to have finer layout control, with drop caps and the like, you might want to look at something else, like Adobe InDesign.

(While the original question is older, my answer is relevant to show that Markdown continues to have value in more cases than you think, even as Markdown evolves.)

Yes.

I've converted several PDFs into text, then Markdown, and then into an EPUB.

Markdown is not as "cluttery" as say, raw HTML, so it's easier to read.

And it's easier for beginners to learn for a markup language.

Plus, any Markdown can be converted to many different formats given the right convertor program, like Pandoc .

So, Markdown is valuable because it's a starting point to make other formats.

Part of my job is finding a "base format" for organized data, and text, so I can convert that to other formats for a wide variety of customers.

So the concept of a "base format" is very important to me.

Markdown is valuable for ebooks because most ebook readers only support a very small subset of the EPUB spec anyway.

So while Markdown is limited, that's exactly what you want

so your book reads on the greatest number of reader software and hardware.

Weak points of any markdown includes ambiguous interpretation of the formatting, something Commonmark is trying to address.

Question: I've for some time enjoyed using Markdown to handle straightforward text formatting, image presentation and the like, which I use for keeping notes, or drafting blog content. I'm aware that different file formats can be used as sources for ebooks, but given that Markdown doesn't have as many formatting capabilities as, say, Word, can it be used for laying out and formatting ebook content?

Is Markdown a viable source format for writing ebooks?

You can use is to write ebooks. It makes it easier to format the book. It does not have many formatting options, so if you want more control then you might want to look at Adobe InDesign.

The general consensus is that Markdown is a perfectly acceptable option for writing ebooks.


Older Kindles

On older generation Kindles (with keyboard)

it is actually possible out of the box .

You just have to store them in a very specific way.

Create a folder named pictures in your Kindle's root directory.

Create folders with arbitrary names for the collections you want to create. Copy the images into those collections.

Press Alt + Z to start the image viewer.

You can then use the following shortcuts : q = zoom inw = zoom oute = reset zoomc =

actual sizef = full-screenr = rotatenav controller = panpage forward and back = cycle through images

I tested this some time ago on a Kindle3 keyboard and it worked.

Newer Kindles

I found a post on the Amazon forums.

It claims that a similar approach still works on the Kindle Paperwhite.

Create a folder named images (not pictures !)

in your Kindle's root directory.

Create folders with arbitrary names for the collections you want to create. Copy the images into the collection folders.

Make sure that the extension is JPG and not JPEG .

Select your collection.

I do not know how to select the collections, but I assume that they are listed along with normal ebooks.

Feel free to add information on whether this works for the K4NT. Kindle 4th/5th

Gen Zip your images.

Name the zip what you want the title of this collection to be.

Copy the zip file to your documents folder.

Eject the Kindle and you'll find that name in your list of books.

Turn pages to browse through the different pictures.

There is a hidden picture viewer in Kindle (

reverse engineered by Igor Skochinsky ): Connect your Kindle to your computer.

Create a new pictures folder in the root of the Kindle ( next to documents, music, ... ).

Create subfolders e.g. book1, book2.

Copy image files onto the subfolders.

Disconnect your Kindle.

Press ALT-Z in the Home screen.

New e-books will appear for each subfolder you created.

Open the book and view the images.

I've tested it using my Kindle 3 Keyboard.

I done this with a Python program that resizes the photos on the fly to the screen resolution and then combine the photos as individual images in a simple EPUB, specifying no borders in the generated HTML and CSS.

The program was originally for combining scanned Manga images, but works for photos as well.

Using LibreOffice Writer Create a new document and go to Format->Page.

Click the "Page" tab and change "Width" and "Height" to 3" and 4" respectively.

Note that the important factor here is the aspect ratio, not the particular dimensions.

You want to match the aspect ratio of your Kindle's screen as closely as possible.

Set the margins to a low number (⅛" is a good value).

Click "OK" to close the dialog and go to Insert->Picture->From File.

Select the picture you would like to insert into the document and click "Open".

You should end up with something like this: Go to File->Export As PDF.

Of particular importance here is the "Reduce image resolution" setting.

Using a value larger than 150dpi will just waste space in the PDF.

Make sure the option is checked and set to a low value (120 is probably a good choice).

Click "Export" and select a location for your PDF.

Transfer the file to your device.

Enjoy your pictures!

Note that you can pinch to zoom and pan on the Kindle Touch.

I've got a 7th Generation kindle and found that I can upload PDF files directly via the USB cable, however I can't get images to upload no matter which of the options I tried that have been mentioned above.

However, Amazon provide you with a @kindle.com email address and you can email all supported document types, including images, to it (as attachments).

The files will then be stored on your device.

Just make sure that any images are included as proper attachments .. i.e. some email clients put images into the body of the email in a "Microsoft friendly format", so disable this option.

Please note you need to go into your kindle settings on Amazons website to configure which email addresses are allowed to send content to your Kindle.

Question: The Kindle e-readers that lack full color displays also lack an app for displaying photos. Is there a way to get a series of photos to display? I realize they will be displayed in monochrome / greyscale, but it comes in handy for diagrams and illustrations.  Specifically, suppose I have a folder containing a bunch of JPEG images. How do I get them displayed in my Kindle?

How to use the e-ink Kindle readers to display photos?

There is a picture viewer in Kindle. You can also use a Python program to resize the photos to the screen resolution.

It is generally agreed that this is possible to do, but you may need to format or store your photos in a specific way. It is also possible that there is a hidden picture viewer on your Kindle.

You may need to store or format your photos in a specific way for them to show your Kindle.

There may be a hidden picture viewer on your Kindle.


I assume you don't write the HTML directly, but use something like MarkDown or reST.

But even if you do, you should look at Pandoc .

The program can read HTML and generate EPUB 2 or EPUB 3 (among others).

Since you mention you post to your blog each Sunday, if you have or can provide an RSS feed you may find the following online free service useful http://newstoebook.com/

I've been using it to create ebooks of one of my project blogs.

The resulting ebook (I create .mobi books for Kindles) have been readable.

I expect there will be limitations so YMMV for your blog posts.

You can use Papyrus for creating ebooks from blog posts or any webpage.

If you already have a blog, you can use this link to convert your blog to book )

Your book will be generated in EPUB, Mobi(Kindle) and PDF formats.

Disclosure: I am the creator of this site.

Calibre can convert XHTML 1.1 + CSS 2.1 to epub.

It's only guaranteed to output valid epub if the input is valid.

It's free and open-source.

If your files really are genuinely valid XHTML, you could even write an XSLT2 script to do the job yourself.

That way you can cater for any idiosyncracies in your XHTML which other systems may not be designed to handle.

Question: I have a number of short HTML files (actually they are XHTML) with small problems and answers, which I post on my blog every Sunday, and I'd like to merge some of them in an ebook.I already did it once, just by stripping the headers and footers and merging them together; then I create the epub skeleton with Calibre and tweaked it with Sigil. But since there are a lot of internal links, it is a time-consuming process.  Is there a simpler way?

How to build an epub starting from a bunch of HTML files?

You can use Papyrus to create ebooks or Calibre.

There are software programmes available that could perform this task for you, including Papyrus or Calibre. However, if your files are in XHTML format, you could use an XSLT2 script to automatically create the epub.

There are software programmes available that can create an epub from HTML, including Papyrus and Calibre.

If your pages are in XHTML format, you could use XSLT2 script to create your epub automatically.


I can answer in regards to the Los Angeles City public libraries, and I suspect that many libraries in the United States use the same system.

They have a dedicated page explaining the e-media options available to their members.

From this page it seems that there are quite a few companies/subcontracters that they use to handle the transfer of ebooks from the library to a subscriber's account/ereader - Axis360 , Overdrive and Hoopla , for example.

There are more options listed on their e-media page, as well as links to other free, public resources like Project Gutenberg , Bartleby , and the Alex catalog of public texts that don't require LAPL membership.

If you own a Kindle e-reader AND if you pay the $79 annual fee for PRIME ("free" shipping) at amazon.com, you can make use of the Kindle Owners' Lending Library.

There are currently 476,987 titles in the Lending Library — each month you can check out one of these books.

(This is how I read Catching Fire , book 2 of the Hunger Games trilogy, last year.)

On the first of the next month, you can choose another book (you must first return the previous book).

It's a definite benefit to owning a Kindle, though the number of well-known books (and authors) is limited.

It depends on your locale, as others said.

A small library in Armpit, NW may not have that ability.

New York Public Library (one of the premier ones)

most certainly does: http://ebooks.nypl.org/ http://www.nypl.org/ebooks - explains their book sources (including Overdrive - same as London - as well as TumbleBook, 3M Cloud etc..) http://www.nypl.org/ask-nypl/ebookcentral

I live in the USA.

Several places I've lived offer free access to ebooks from local libraries.

A common way seems to be through using Adobe Digital Editions .

This program does the following:

You pair it with your ebook-reading device on your local computer.

The program checks the book out from the library in your name.

The program puts it on your ebook-reading device, and deletes it once your borrowing time is up.

The county library for Portland Oregon offers Hoopla for streaming media as well as 3M Digital Library and Overdrive for ebooks.

But, then, we love our libraries!

Question: I know Amazon has a program where, if you pay extra, you can borrow ebooks.  Just about everyone in the USA pays taxes to support their local Library.  Are there any programs that allow library books to be checked out, as ebooks?

Can I get an ebook from the library in the United States?

It depends on your local library. Some libraries have free access to ebooks.

The answer to this question will depend on your region, but in theory, there are many libraries that offer this service.


The one I use is Luzme

It queries several stores including Kobo, Amazon, B&N and in several countries.

It then for each book shows the price that it last saw for each source and country.

It is searchable by book name and author and series, although the series data is not complete as it comes from the stores.

You can set up a wishlist of books and emails can be sent when they change price.

This site does provide DRM status if the store makes that data available.

The format is not shown however Amazon sites provide Kindle format and others

at least ePub - I would be interested in any exceptions

Calibre is a downloadable (free, donations accepted) application that will allow you to search over multiple stores, for content.

Using the get books function, to provide information like comparative pricing between retailers and DRM status of the work at different retailers.

Yes there are.

The one I remember is Inkmesh .

You can filter by price, type (ebook, magazine, audiobook, etc.) device and language.

Its database has large gaps though.

This site does not provide DRM status.

There is a decent search engine called Leatherbound ebook search engine .

Like Inkmesh and Luzme it allows you to search for a book across multiple stores and price compare.

Here is a sample search result (for an entertaining book I might add).

In addition, you can search for printed books, free ebooks, ebook under $5 and some advanced search options.

This site does not provide DRM status.

Amazon only enhanced search engines (I'll group these together since they don't quite fit the question, but are still worth a mention).

Jungle-Search is an interesting search engine.

It's not limited to ebooks and is Amazon only (though you can choose from various Amazon stores, such as CAN/US/UK/GER/FRA).

The purpose of this search engine is to allow you to more easily search by discount rates and price ranges.

Here is the how-to section (for US since most of our users are US; you can easily switch to another country at the top).

eReaderIQ allows you to search amazon, track books and add them to a watch list (being notified of price drops for books, authors etc.).

It also has a history of pricing for ebooks.

This is available for US/CAN/UK Amazon sites.

Question: Are there any websites that work like ebook search engines, where you can perform a search over multiple stores and have the results sortable and/or filterable for file format, price, presence of DRM, and so on?

Are there any ebook search engines?

Try Luzme, Calibre, Inkmesh or Leatherbound for search engines and price compare.

Yes, there are a number of ebook search engines available, such as Luzme, Inkmesh and Leatherbound.

Some ebook search engines available include Inkmesh, Luzme and Leatherbound.


Buy an iPad or iPad mini and install Goodreader (the latest version at this time is actually called GoodReader 4 , according to the previous link; it can be found here )

.That is the best choice.

You're trying to find something out of both worlds - tablets and eReaders.

There are serveral devices planned to publish within the coming year.

But at the moment this market looks rather abandonned.

(planned devices by Sony and Onyx as far as I know) Until those devices are on the market you need to limit your requirements, as visibility and readability in sunlight of todays tablets is not that great.

While e-ink displays are nice to read in

nearly every light are still limited to classic ereaders which don't allow full featured pdf view.

Print it with a good printer.

I know this is not the answer you are looking for

but it's still the solution that beats current technology.

You can't zoom a print; I'd argue that a good print is sufficient since an scientific article should only have images that have value on A4/Letter paper.

The Kindle DX, which uses e-ink (so it is readable in direct sunlight), was specifically designed to render PDF files in their native format (including multi-column material, tables and graphics) and was designed to be used in an academic environment.

It has a 9.7" e-ink screen, which I believe is the largest of any e-reader (the Kindle Fire HD has a 7" screen, and does not use e-ink).

You can also zoom in to 200% of the original text.

It is available through Amazon for $300 .

It includes a full keyboard, 3G free "whispernet" connection for downloads, runs up to three weeks on a battery charge with the wireless off, and is one of the thinnest e-readers out there (1/3 inch).

It also includes an accelerometer to sense when you rotate it, to allow a PDF to be read a half page at a time in landscape mode with much larger type.

If you want to be able to read anything on a device in a direct sunlight your only choice is an ereader using electronic ink.

Here is an example, outdoors on a sunny day with the sun blasting directly at the screen (try that with a tablet or your phone): From my own experience 9.7" screen size is the minimum you need to read technical literature.

I tried with 8" hi-res screen but it was just too small.

I made an almost complete switch from paper to the ereader

and I read books mainly in the PDF format from sources such as Manning , O'Reilly , Packt , Safari and books that I couldn't find anywhere and scanned myself.

You have quite a choice these days.

In 2012 I started to use bespoke Linux based Onyx Boox M92

and then in 2014 upgraded to Android based Onyx Boox M96 , both 9.7" electronic ink ereaders.

At present there are newer N96 (dual touch) and N96ML

(touch + frontlight) 9.7

" Android devices and 13.3" Onyx Boox Max .

There is also 13.3" Sony DPT-S1

but it runs custom Linux (limited software choice).

You don't list these as requirements but there are some things of secondary importance after the screen that still quite matter to me in the reader I have: very long battery life since the screen doesn't use it once the page is displayed ability to install Android apps (dictionary, cloud client, VPN client etc.)

connectivity (wifi, bluetooth) external storage (microSD cards) and finally ability to scribble/highlight/erase as I would do in a normal book.

One potential disadvantage of ereaders - they are not very powerful.

This can be an issue especially with scanned documents when turning a page can take up to 3 seconds (depending on resolution, complexity, etc.), which renders skimming through such documents impossible.

Below is an example screenshot from my ereader with a table and some doodles, you can zoom in the document as much as you like:

You can find loads of information on ereaders on MobileRead forums .

Question: I need to buy a device for reading. It must have all these features:   Smoothly zoom  all  pictures  Format  all  tables properly  Read PDF (or be able to convert)  Not create eye problems and be visible in the sun   Is there a category of devices that is able to meet all these demands? What is the best size?

What 's the best way to read a scientific PDF?

Try an iPad with Goodreader installed or a Kindle DX that has e-ink for sunlight.

The answer to this question will be subjective. Some may recommend an iPad with Goodreader installed, others may recommend a Kindle DX or other e-reader that uses electronic ink.


As a general principle, no.

But most software vendors provide compatible apps for PC/Mac/Android.

So if you will be happy using their reader app, you just install their apps and get synchronization across all platforms.

For instance, I don't own a Kindle, but I buy ebooks from Amazon and read them on both Kindle for PC and Kindle for Android

The same is true of Kobo .

What this doesn't do is let you sync sideloaded books, or any book not purchased from that particular vendor.

Try the Bluefire reader ( http://www.bluefirereader.com/ ) I had to switch to Bluefire from Kindle after getting a windows 8 tablet since the win8 kindle app doesn't allow sideloaded books.

Bluefire on the other hand has apps for ALL the major ecosystems (ios, android, windows).

In order to sync between devices you will need to set up a free adobe ID which you will use to register each of your apps, then dump your epubs to DropBox and download from dropbox to each of the apps.

Google Play Books does a great job of syncing epub files and even remembering where you were on another device.

I used to use Aldiko (and AldikoSync) on all my android devices, but this is now too much hassle as the device needs to be rooted to work (you used to be able to use an older version of Aldiko on un-rooted devices, but that stopped working on my latest android devices.)

However this wouldn't work on desktops.

I now use Google Play books which, as "idiotprogrammer" states, works great across android (tablet and phones) and chrome on desktops.

My next step is to find an e-reader that I can use Google Play books on

(I have an old nook which I used for Aldiko, but it won't run GPB.)

The app "PocketBook" is an alternative to Kindle and Google Play.

It's worth a look if you don't have/want to use an Amazon or Google account.

It will sync your books, notes, progress, and so forth across devices, using Dropbox as a back-end.

It is on both iOS and Android.

I discovered it just by going through the various ebook apps on the different platforms.

The best overall iOS eBook apps (Marvin and Hyphen) unfortunately do not have any way of syncing to Android.

Apple Books does exactly this for ePubs across all platforms it’s available on.

Which doesn’t help an Android user, but it’s something.

BookFusion can sync reading progress across Android, iOS and web application.

I'm happily to use it to read my PDF books.

Currently the reading experience is acceptable but not perfect.

I've sent some feedback email, the support team says there will be a big update in Q3-Q4 2020.

Question: I know you can already do this for the Kindle and between Android devices with say Moon+ reader installed. What I meant is for EPUBs and between platforms. I would like to read on my Android phone for example and then pick up where I left off on my desktop. Is this possible?  I'm looking for a solution that does not involve using Kobo or Amazon's apps.

Is there a way to sync reading progress across multiple devices and platforms?

Try using the Bluefire reader or Google Play Books that will sync epub files and works great on android and chrome. Apple Books and BookFusion can also sync reading progress across platforms.

Whilst some people doubt whether this is possible, many people believe that appliacations such as Bluefire, Google Play Books, Apple Books or BookFusion should allow you to track reading progress across multiple devices.

Some people are not sure whether this is possible.

Some people recommend a range of programme options, including Bluefire reader, Google Play Books, Apple Books or BookFusion to track your reading progress across different devices.


Kindle - but also the other ebook readers - have a small screen: since a PDF is not a liquid format, either you'll end up with tiny characters or you'll have to move the virtual page on the physical screen.

In my opinion, a larger tablet in such cases is much better.

Instead of a Kindle, I bought an inexpensive tablet from a Chinese firm, which gave a large display, yet ran full Android KitKat.

Meritline.com and Everbuying.com are two vendors I've used which sell such and have been reliable for years with no problems with their products.

Kindle is too small for reading PDFs and is really hard to convert them, considering the images, it doesn't worth the time.

You can try Ectaco JetBook or Sony E-reader 13.3" (too expensives).

Even a cheap tablet with anti-reflective may be a good option.

I own an original keyboard Kindle and a Samsung Tab 2 7 running Kindle

and I much prefer the tablet.

Even though it is an older model with mediocre resolution, I find that I prefer the backlight for reading at night.

And since PDF is a poor format for scaling and for transformation to Kindle format, I prefer to be able to read PDF files natively on the tablet.

So I would recommend a tablet for you.

Now, there are a number of good readers that handle formats that PDF does convert to reasonably well, or so I have read.

I have seen the Nook and the Kobo both being highly recommended for their ability to deal with almost any format.

The Kobo ARC might be a good choice as it is I believe an Android device

and you could deal with PDF natively again.

I have a 7" Kindle and "comfortable" is not the best way to describe the experience.

Always on landscape mode

Some books will have large fonts, giving you a "claustrophobic" sensation.

Maybe I'm overreacting but sometimes it does Books with small letters: You'll find yourself zooming in sometimes.

There are some readers that improve the experience, but, all in all, if you have the money.

Get a large screen tablet.

I'd say a 4:3 screen will give you a better reading space.

Also, there are softwares to convert them.

The end result is not good.

The Kindle version (From Amazon) also doesn't look 'right' for programming books.

Sometimes you get confused with text vs. code block.

Images and tables will break.

I have a lot of programming books and despite all that I rather read them as PDF.

It's not the perfect solution, but, it's all I have.

EDIT

: I use a mod for my Kindle, I tested a lot of readers.

Question: Should I buy kindle for reading PDFs only? I usually read lots of books on programming, software development and investment only. So, Should I buy kindle for the same. Because as far as I know these most of these books (Especially Programming) are available in PDF only.  Will it be comfortable reading them on Kindle?

Kindle for PDF only

Kindle is too small for reading PDFs and is hard to convert them.

The general consensus is that a Kindle is not recommended for solely reading PDFs as they do not render well.


I just got a new paperwhite, and am reading my own books on it without registering.

It nags you to register, but if you open Calibre, and then connect via USB, you can put books on, and it all works just as normal.

The only thing you can't do if you don't register is to "buy" Amazon's drm books, or access the ones you've already "bought."

Although it is possible you may be able to transfer said books through your kindle desktop app, I haven't tried,don't really care.

I can't speak definitively about this, but my understanding is that you need a kindle account to register the device as new.

The reason is that amazon.com wants to make sure you are able to spend money -- they lose money on the kindles and hope to make up for it with sales of ebooks and apps.

After it is registered, you can connect via USB to a laptop or computer and transfer as many files as you want, more or less (using Calibre, etc).

You don't need to purchase one thing.

You don't need to use kindle to do the transferring (unless you really want to).

So you really only need to connect to amazon.com one time.

You don't need to connect to wifi after that first time.

I'm guessing that you are dealing with a used device wiped clean with broken wifi

or you are in a country where amazon doesn't have a store or you are buying it for a young person and don't want to give him access to your credit card.

If you are concerned about credit card use, you can give a functioning credit card when you register, and then change/remove the credit card later.

By the way, one advantage of being registered is that Kindle will automatically download updates.

See also this thread http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=TxFBK4BK0D6L9Y See also this thread on setting parental controls to prevent kids from buying things http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201423070

Never register your kindle when you buy.

Turn off wifi by putting into wifi mode.

Then just use your kindle as a sort of usb stick with screen.

Drag and drop pdf and mobi files (use the great free program Calibre to convert epub etc to these formats.

This works for a kindle of a couple of years ago with the square button on the bottom.

Yes, you can use a Kindle (at least Kindles that are several years old) without an Amazon account.

I got a secondhand Kindle that is probably ~4-5 years old.

I connected to wifi to deregister the prior owner.

Then I turned wifi off, and connected to my pc with a microUSB cable and uploaded books using Calibre.

I just got a new paperwhite 09/2018 and you can use it without registering although it may not seem like it at first.

You'll see the connect & register screen when first starting up

and it won't let you do anything else.

Pretend like you are going to, search for networks, but don't join anything.

Cancel back out and it will then ask if you would like to continue setup later.

Do that and then never register if that's what you prefer.

Yes, you can use a Kindle without an account, or without registering it.

You can copy MOBI or PDF or a few other data file formats into the "Documents" directory using USB, and it'll display them just fine.

There are four differences I've found that apply to all the Kindles I've tried this with.

You can't buy books from Amazon Store directly from the device, obviously.

You can't take an Amazon Kindle copy-protected-format file from one of your other Kindles, copy them onto your unregistered Kindle, and read them.

(Not surprising.)

You can't email a file to the Kindle using Amazon Whispernet's my-kindle-name@kindle.com address (also obvious.)

The Collections feature doesn't work without registration (Not obvious, and annoying.)

It's not a problem if you've only got a few dozen books on there at a time, but if you've downloaded half of Project Gutenberg onto your Kindle into one big flat directory mess, it's hard to keep track of stuff.

Question: I'd like to know if it is possible to use a Kindle reader without having an Amazon account, but rather  only  uploading the reader's own files into the device.

Can you use a Kindle without an Amazon account?

You need an Amazon account to register the Kindle but you can use the Kindle without registering and without an Amazon account.

Whilst it is true that you will need an Amazon account to register your device, it is generally agreed that you can use your Kindle without registering it and, therefore, without having an Amazon account.

You will need an Amazon account in order to register your device.

It is generally agreed that you can use a Kindle without registering it.


You can try IceCream Ebook Reader : Meet Icecream Ebook Reader, one of the best free EPUB readers that transforms your computer screen into a convenient top-notch ebook reader.

The tool enables you read ebooks in EPUB, MOBI, FB2, PDF and other popular formats.

Manage your digital library on your PC or Windows-based laptop.

This program also features the ability to turn pages, use bookmarks, search your library, track reading progress and much more.

You could try Sumatra PDF ; despite the name, this program can read various document formats, including ebooks ( .epub and .mobi ) and comic books ( .cbz and .cbr ).

It's free and open source, and its main features are being a lightweight and portable program; I've tried it a couple of times, and I found it a bit too minimalistic (maybe this is a plus for you), but if you need a program that won't drain your system resources you should definitely give it a try.

Besides that, and not counting other obvious alternatives like Kindle and Kobo readers for PC, I don't have many other suggestions; I'm mainly a Linux user, and I'm fine with Calibre internal reader, so I've never really bothered to look for other things.

You could try to look for something else on alternativeto.net ( here and here ), but honestly, there seems to be very few ebook readers for PC, if compared with their portable devices counterparts: people mostly like to read ebooks on ereaders or tablets, so I think that developers have less incentive to work on software that runs on a PC.

If you like good support of ePub3

and it’s advantages, give a chance to Azardi Reader or to Readium.

Azardi Reader Well built reader with nice support of modern e-books’ features.

Readium

Supporting latest standards as far as possible.

It is possible to install it in a form of Chrome plugin (or Vivaldi plugin).

The rest, like ADE, are, according to my experiences, a bit unstable.

There are plenty of plugins to Firefox as well as Chromium but none of them has as good options and ePub support as these two.

I use them daily for testing.

Anyway, these two are those recommended to readers of the publishing house I work for.

Azardi: Readium:

You may want to try ePub File Reader.

EPUB File Reader is a free EPUB files viewer, can help you to open and read ePub e-books and documents.

The software interface consists of two parts, the left will show document chapter directory, the right is a browser to show document content.

This software is easy to use very much, it is a freeware and completely free to use.

EPUB File Reader download page

If you use Windows 8 or 10, Nook is a really good choice.

Customize your reading experience to view books with different fonts, line spacing and themes, turn pages with the flick of a finger or jump to any page.

The app even comes loaded with free book samples.

And so you never lose your place, the NOOK app syncs

the last page you've read across your tablet and PC.

As someone else said, Ice Cream is pretty good too, if you are on Windows Vista and above.

VitalSource Bookshelf, calibre, Kindle, Firefox addon and also ADE-4(ADE 4 is supporting epub3 and fixed layout.

For Windows 10, I use Microsoft Edge, it simply does the job.

Question: On my Android devices I use Aldiko and Moon Reader Pro, depending on my mood.On Windows, however, I am still stuck with FBReader and the reader bundled with Calibre, and I don't like very much both of them. (Adobe Digital Edition is a heavy program). I would prefer a standalone program which runs on Windows 7 too, and I don't like browser extension since my browsers already use a lot of RAM. Any suggestions?

Which ePub readers are available for Windows?

Try IceCream Ebook Reader, Sumatra PDF, or ePub File Reader. Microsoft Edge is good for Windows 10 and Nook for Windows 8 and 0.

There are a range of ePub readers available for windows, including IceCream Ebook Reader, Sumatra PDF, Nook or ePub File Reader.


The Holy Roman Empire actually persisted into the early 19th century.

At this time it was centralized in the loosely defined and allied Germanic states/kingdoms.

Following the rise of Napoleon and the defeat of many different, unaligned German kingdoms' forces by Napoleon's forces, Napoleon was able to sweep across the nation we now know as Germany.

One of the first things Napoleon did was to dismantle the once-proud Holy Roman Empire as well as install a number of administrative and economic reforms.

Doing so actually laid the foundations of a (loose) sense of German nationalism that had not existed prior to this and led the way to many of the revolutionary happenings of the 19th century in central Europe (more specifically in Germany, Prussia, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, France, and many other tiny German principalities and duchies).

Sources used: David Blackbourn's History of Germany, 1780-1918:

The Long Nineteenth Century

Officially it collapsed after falling to Napoleon with the 4th treaty of Pressburg, but had been fading for some time before that.

The empire was pretty decentrized in nature, but various events such as the Peace of Westphalia after the thirty years war, which granted dominions effectively independence in all but name.

Nations, especially the Hapsburgs in Austria, looking to consolidate their own domains over that of the empires, and the thwarting of policies that would have brought more centralization to the empire's rule.

To build on GPierce's answer, the HRE functionally collapsed much before that time.

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) had really taken a toll on the HRE's central government.

It left the country politically and religiously divided, which was a major issue to unification at that point in time.

The country was ruled by princes who controlled city states that were loosely connected.

This remained until Napoleon, as Gpirece stated, swept across modern day Germany.

The Holy Roman Empire was a bit more unified during even its latest phase than many answers have said.

After the thirty ears war many German sates rallied to support he Emperor in the period calling the Imperial reaction which lasted until the 1720s when Emperor Charles VI had to curry favor with the various states to get their support for his daughter's succession.

By 1720 Charles VI had become about as powerful in Germany as Ferdinand II had been at is peak in the Thirty Years War, but without fighting any battles.

But then he had to negotiate support for the Pragmatic sanction with the princes treating them as his equals.

If either Joseph I or Charles VI had had a son who grew to adulthood the imperial Reaction may have continued much longer and the war of The Austrian Succession might not have happened and the rivalry between Prussia and Austria might not have happened.

Also during the War of the Spanish succession Emperor Joseph

I was able to confiscate several small states in the Kingdom of Italy or Lombardy, and in one particular year he actually manged to collect more Imperial War Tax from the Kingdom of Lombardy than from the Kingdom of Germany, so Italy was not yet totally outside of the Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) officially ceased to exist one fine day in August of 1806 when Francis II went to the Imperial Diet and resigned.

He of course continued to be the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, but that is another story.

What only a small number of people thought about was the fact that for the first time since 31 BC,there was not a single political institution called "Roman Empire".

In that year, when Octavian had fought the Battle of Actium and established himself as Princeps (First Person) in a situation that was widely regarded as an imperial arrangement, there had been a Roman Empire of some sort.

Whether as a Principate, a Dominate, an Eastern and a Western Empire, an Empire in the East that called itself "Romaioi" (Greek for "Romans"), or as a Germanic Empire that called itself "Holy Roman", there had ALWAYS been a Roman Empire!

And yet, as TS Eliot would later say of the world, it died, "not with a bang, but a whimper".

Why did it die?

Well, it failed to make a Nation-State out of Germany.

It failed to ever have a stable method of succession to the throne.

And the Emperors had a hard time justifying their right to rule, given the first two limitations.

Of course, the immediate cause of death listed by the Coroner was the Battle of Austerlitz and the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine.

But the above three reasons had rendered the Empire impotent for years.

As I stated in my answer on Frederick II, the book will be out in a few years and then you will know WHY those three things above happened as they did.

But for now, those reasons are sufficient, as explaining why the reasons obtained will be a book-length answer.

When Frederick II came to the throne in 1215, he tried to extend the HRE even more towards Italy (his father married the heiress of the throne of Sicily).

His main ambition to create such an empire was because of the constant clashes with the papacy.

His vain efforts to gain strength in Italy only weakened him in Germany, leaving the German dukes and princes free to govern Germany.

After the death of Frederick II, the HRE rapidly declined.

The German monarchs continued to be called HRE emperors, but they held little power.

history.stackexchange.com/users/16/Daniel says Reinstate Monica

The Holy Roman Empire was never a real "country," but rather a motley confederation of mostly independent (mostly German-speaking) states.

During the Middle Ages, it did, however, prove itself capable of rallying behind an elected Emperor for crusading or other religious purposes.

In contrast to other answerers above, I date the (de facto, not de jure) collapse of the Holy Roman Empire to the Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, between the Swedish-led (Protestant) north German states, and the Austrian-led (Catholic) south German states.

By splitting the "empire" into Protestant and Catholic camps, the long war destroyed the common ethos that had hitherto bound the different states, and made the "confederation" a shell of disunited, often warring entities.

Question: In the 1500's, the Holy Roman Empire was a relatively powerful country. By the mid 1800's, it seemed to be superseded by in importance by its states.  When did the unified "Holy Roman Empire" really collapse and why?

When did the Holy Roman Empire collapse?

The Holy Roman Empire existed until the early 19th century. It failed to ever have a stable succession to the throne. It officially collapsed after it fell to Napoleon.

The Holy Roman empire officially collapsed in the 19th century following the resignation of Francis II. The collapse was due to multiple factors, including Napoleon's activities, the competing interests of individual member states and not having a stable succession protocol.

The Holy Roman Empire existed until the 19th century.

The Holy Roman Empire officially collapsed following the 4th Treaty of Pressburg.

Its collapse was partly due to not having a stable succession protocol.

Its collapse was partly due to its interests being in conflict with the individual interests of its member states.

The Holy Roman Empire officially ended in 1806 when Francis II resigned.


According to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel , one of the first steps from a hunter-gatherer society towards civilization is agriculture.

While agricultural societies appeared all over the world, the old world had a more suitable environment, especially with regards to the grains and large animals that lived there.

The old world had wheat, which is easy to plant, harvest and eat, while the new world had maize (corn), which is not.

With regard to large domesticate-able animals, the old world had horses, sheep and cattle, while the new world just had llamas.

The old world could also trade east-west, which meant plants and animals could easily find similar climates (because of similar latitudes) over very long distances, while the new world's trade routes were primarily north-south.

Agricultural production encourages a sedentary society, which in turn leads to population growth, specialization of craft and labor, and a ruling class.

Put it all together

and you get more and better technology.

Depends on what you mean by advanced.

If you mean in terms of metalworking, the lack of easily exploited tin deposits in the Americas means that a bronze age never took off.

There was a copper-working culture surrounding the Great Lakes, and it pre-dated the chalcolithic in the old world by a few thousand years, but this lasted only as long as the accessible copper ore did.

On the other hand, the civilizations in the Americas had architecture, science, math and literature to match anything in the Old World.

The Incas and their forebears were masters of textiles - they built massive suspension bridges, armor, even boats, from cotton.

Along the Amazon and Mississippi cultures used massive earthworks projects and advanced horticultural knowledge to sustain huge cities.

So, what happened?

What happened was Smallpox.

It wiped out close to 90% of the population of the Americas in only a few decades.

The cultures in the Americas didn't have the population base to copy and improve on what the Europeans were doing - in China and India, the political situation was ripe for exploit by outside powers (and this has been a recurring theme for both civilizations going back millennia), but in the Americas, it was plague and plague alone that allowed the Europeans to take over.

(The Vikings had been trying off and on for 500 years before Columbus - things Did Not Go Well for them outside of Greenland.)

The civilizations developed around the Mediterranean Sea (Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Judes) were close together, wich made it easier to share ideas and practice commerce.

China, India and the Aztecs had to be developed in a relative vacuum.

Well, Africa is in the Old World, but most of sub-Saharan Africa was developed less than the Maesoamerican civilizations.

Pre-Christian North-East Europe was also at the stage comparable with American cultures.

Siberia and North Asia were less developed also.

That is, only the European civilization developed from Classic Antiquity had significant advantage over Mesoamerican civilizations (as well as over the rest of the Old World).

Historically, civilizations have developed best along peninsulas: mostly surrounded by water, but with one land bridge.

Egypt was a peninsula (between the Nile River, Red Sea, and Mediterranean).

So was Babylon (between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers).

India is one large peninsula, as was ancient China (between the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers).

Greece and Rome, of course, were the classic examples.

The new world had fewer such peninsulas (in good climates).

You can call Patagonia, Argentina a peninsula, but that's too cold.

The Panama Canal has made Mexico/Central America a "peninsula," but one that's too hot.

The WHOLE purpose of the Erie Canal was to turn the Eastern United States into a "peninsula (by connecting the Great Lakes, Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico), which is one reason why that country prospered, beginning in the nineteenth century.

Question: Assuming they started at the same point (maybe the split of the continents or the migration of what became the first "Native Americans" to the American continent), why did the Old World end up developing faster? When the first conquistadors set foot in the New World, it's clear that the old world had developed technologically (for example militarily) better than the New World.

What are the factors that caused the new world civilizations to be less technologically advanced than the old world?

It depends on what you mean by advanced. The lack of metal deposits in the Americas meant there was no iron age. Smallpox also set development back. The civilizations in Europe were close together and shared ideas and commerce, whereas in the New World civilisations were often far apart.

The answer to this question will be subjective, depending on the definition of the term 'advanced'. Peoples in the Mediterranean found it relatively easy to trade and share ideas, whilst tribes in the Americas would have found it much harder. Coupled with this, tribes in the Americas didn't enjoy the same mineral resources as other parts of the world and would also potentially have suffered much more with the arrival of Smallpox.

The answer to this question will be subjective as it depends on the definition of the term 'advanced'.

The geography of the two different worlds will have played a part in their development, as the Mediterranean peoples found it easier to trade and share ideas.

The tribes in the Americas did not have the same material resources that Europeans had.

Smallpox may have had a significant impact on the tribes in the Americas.


I will not interpret intercontinental in modern terms but rather view it as trade among distinct civilisations.

Such trade dates back to Ancient Egyptian civilisations, Babylonians and Indus Valley Civilisation.

Proofs exists in form of archeological excavations of, for example , potteries of Indus Civilisation in Iran and other parts of central Asia.

The following articles may be of help: ThinkQuest - Ancient Trade in Mediterranean Wikipedia article(s) on these cultures

The British Museums's website has a very descriptive timeline of ancient trade.

(It is flash

based, cannot directly link.

Navigate your way starting here .)

There is direct evidence of truly intercontinental trade dating back to approximately 1700 BC.

Jack Turner, in his book Spice: The History of a Temptation , writes that a handful of cloves were found in a charred vessel in Syria.

The find was remarkable in that, until modern times, cloves only grew on five tiny islands that are part of the Moluccas in Indonesia.

Clay tablets located at the same archeological site reference a specific king, allowing the tablets and the cloves to be dated to approximately 1721 BC.

According to the Wikipedia, Egypt traded with Canaan at the time of the first dynasty and probably even before that, that's about 3000 BCE.

Obsidian was exported during the Stone Age (Neolithic) from Melos (an island in Europe) to the Near East (Asia) and Egypt (Africa).

Blades, cutting tools, piercing tools, arrow heads, mirrors and artwork are made from obsidian.

The trade started 13000 years ago, before the discovery of agriculture.

To further detail Lev's example -- there is some evidence of cultural exchange between the Maadi culture of the Nile delta region in Lower Egypt somewhere during the middle of the Naqada period of predynastic Egyptian history, in the neighborhood of 3900-3500 BCE.

Some of the evidence for this in the archaeological record is a type of blade (referred to as the "Canaanite Blade") that shows some Palestinian influences, as well as an apparently simultaneous shift to the usage of certain copper tools rather than their stone counterparts in both this Maadi region as well as in Palestine.

Source: The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt 2003 Edition, pp54-55

I know this question is old, but the previous answers did not touch on truly intercontinental trade.

The first example of intercontinental trade has to be during the Age of Discovery.

From the 15th-17th century the European nations explored beyond their borders in search of trade, and subsequently subjugation.

The interaction between them and other cultures is the world's first example of intercontinental trade.

The Vikings may have traded with people far beyond their borders, and even the Carthaginians may have reached the New World, but in terms of sustained trade the Age of Discovery has to be paramount.

The exploration missions of the "discoverers" from Europe were all prefaced upon finding a quicker route to the silk trade routes of Asia that Marco Polo originally discovered with his overland route.

This was the impetus for European exploration and would lead to the wide spread European colonization and the development of intercontinental trade in goods previously non-existent in mainland Europe such as spices, and chocolates.

These trade routes, and the driving force behind them have to be the first examples of intercontinental trade because they actually endured and influenced history.

The previous routes were short lived.

Bronze age:

Troy and Greece: one is in Europe, the other in Asia.

The Greek states did balk at the tolls of Troy, or at least that is one of the reasons given for the war by Herodotus in The Histories .

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

Tin from Britain was used in bronze found in the middle east.

And it's likely the Phoenicians were getting copper from across the Atlantic during the same time period.

Humans didn't start using iron for everything because it was better than bronze.

Civilizations collapsed and the trade networks for bronze alloy materials fell apart

so people switched to iron because it was readily available locally.

This was around the "Fall of Troy," invasion of the Sea Peoples, roughly 1200 bc.

Which is the same time that ancient copper mines in Michigan were abandoned.

Humans were originally nomadic so intercontinental trade has been going pretty much as long as we've existed.

It might just stop sometimes because we get stupid every few thousand years.

Question: Probably this happened several times and maybe even failed and broke up in different regions.  What hints and proofs do we have of the earliest succesful intercontinental trade relations?  I assume there didn't yet exist a common currency system and it was pure barter trade.

First evidence of intercontinental or cross-cultural trade?

Proof exists in the form of archeological findings that show trade as far back as the 3000 BC, Stone Age, the Age of Discovery and  the Vikings.

This is a difficult question to answer since evidence will vary in terms of quality and abundance. However, there is evidence that Egypt traded with other civilisations as early as 3000 BC, and even some stone age acheaological evidence. Many people may point to the Age of Discovery as the most well-documented period of intercontinental trade.

Various archeaological evidence exists pointing to the existence of trade at various points in ancient human history between African and Asian cultures.

The Age of Discovery may be the period with the best supported documentation of intercontinental trade.

There is direct evidence of intercontinental trade dating back to 1700 BC.

Egypt may have traded with Canaan as far back as 3000 BC.


World War One was at the dawn of the modern military age.

Military leaders had to adapt to new technologies with new strategies.

Near the beginning of the war, soldiers would just stand up out of their trenches and shoot each other.

Later, elaborate tactics and new technologies were employed.

The battle of Vimy Ridge details the adoption of no less than six strategic firsts: creeping barrage, units of 10-15 men each with their own map (instead of 50 men with one map), suppressive gunfire, flash spotting, and others.

Here is a brief look at some of the tactics.

The tactics employed at Vimy Ridge allowed for the attacking Canadians to lose only 10k casualties while taking a heavily fortified ridge from the Germans and inflicting 30k casualties on the defenders.

Strategy played a huge role.

I highly recommend reading both of the linked articles in their entirety.

They are exciting and informative.

The Allies never did make a real breakthrough in the West.

At the end of the war, they were pushing the German Army back, but never breaking through.

The Germans did, against the Allies, but it's a matter of question whether German offensive practices were better than Allied, or Allied defensive practices were worse than German.

Given that the British and French were usually attacking, and that the areas the Germans hit were generally the more lightly defended, my guess is that it's a matter of worse Allied defense.

The main problems the offensive faced were communications and logistics.

Breaking through trench lines was a matter of coordinating infantry and artillery, and as the infantry advanced it lost all contact.

The infantry would hit later trench lines at more and more variable times, so the artillery couldn't coordinate.

Moreover, it was almost impossible to supply forces as they advanced; this is what caused the failure of the German Spring 1918 Offensive.

At the very end of the war, the Allies were experimenting with putting radios on tanks, to keep contact with the rear (including the artillery), and that might have made breakthroughs possible.

Tanks were also useful for fire support, although very unreliable in those days, so breakdowns were very frequent.

Defensive positions in WWII were often deeper and better held than those of WWI, and were often broken through by well-planned attacks.

Aircraft and tanks provided mobile firepower, there were good cross-country trucks, and radios allowed artillery to support the attack effectively until the limits of its range.

A multitude of approaches were taken, not just by the Allies but by the Germans as well:

Fire and move tactics (akin to modern infantry tactics).

Lighter, more portable machine guns that could be carried forward to support the attack Better artillery tactics, particularly to support the infantry attack.

Penetration tactics (on the German side in particular), attacking through the weakest points and leaving follow up units to deal with outflanked strong points.

Various technological advances (tanks, planes, gas)

Most attacks were initially successful; however, it was extremely difficult to bring up support to maintain the ground taken, and counter attacks would defeat gains made.

The Allied forces had more or less developed a pretty successful system of attacking by the end of the war.

It did rely on having greater material resources than the Germans.

Constant pressure and a large number of well resourced "bite and hold" attacks.

This concentrated of wearing down the German army in a pretty brutal war of attrition.

Each attack was limited, kept in range of the supporting guns, the objective was not to breakthrough but break in.

Given the limitation and problems 'exploiting' or attempted 'breakthrough' , Allied strategy was not aimed at these.

(the problems just could not be solved).

The quick succession of bite and hold attacks would eventually wear down the German reserves, and them there would be some sort of breakthrough.

The tank was one major development that helped break through the trenches.

The British Mk1 tank was employed with some degree of success at the Battle of Cambrai for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cambrai_(1917 )

The British gained more ground here in six hours than they gained in three months at Ypres for example.

However, due to lack of infantry support most of the ground gained was lost to a German counter-attack soon afterwards.

Question: Reading the answers to  this question about WW1 Western Front , it appears that breaking through the trenches was a very difficult task to do. How did the Allies finally make it? Was it the invention of new tactics and technology? Or was it just the numerical advantage caused by the entry of the Americans?

What new technology/tactics allowed the breakthrough of the trenches in WW I western front?

Advances in military tactics, lighter machine guns and technological advances like radios helped to break through the German defenses. The tank was one such development.

The allies were likely able to breakthrough enemy trenches as a result of more refined tactics and technological advances. Tanks will have made it easier to break through the trenches initially, but without infantry support, these gains would be temporary. Therefore, a change in infantry tactics may also have played a significant part in making these gains.

A change in tactics, such as 'bite and hold', may have played a part in allowing infantry to make greater gains in trench warfare.

Advances in technology, such as tanks, will doubtlessly have significantlly contributed towards being able to take enemy trenches.


Among other (geostrategic) reasons, the most plausible explanation is because in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia there were regions in which considerable Serb populations had lived since long ago (for example in Krajina in Croatia from the 16th century).

During a hegemonic treatment of other nations in the second Yugoslavia, the Serbs slowly planned and succeeded in populating these base Serb regions with more of their countrymen from Serbia.

In the late 80s, these Serb populations were an argument to seize the land and form Great Serbia.

During the war, these factions were funded and supplied from Belgrade.

It was much easier to maintain strategic control from regions where the people directly supported the army (which was completely Serb at the time of Yugoslav breakup).

That is why the Serbs concentrated their efforts on Croatia and Bosnia, withdrawing all tanks and military from Slovenia, for example.

If they had won the war, I assume that the international community would have completely accepted their idea to reoccupy Slovenia and Macedonia as well, under the name of Yugoslavia.

Also, I assume that a condition for doing that would have been that they cling to the EU/US, and not Russia.

As stated by others this is not really true.

Even though shorter and less bloody compared to those in Bosnia and Croatia, the 10-day war outbroke in Slovenia between Yugoslav army located in the province and Slovenian police forces.

To answer your question: the reason perhaps lies in the fact that Slovenia had ethnically clear picture with majority of Slovenians living within its border, i.e. the Slovenian border encompass Slovenian people quite fairly.

On the other hand, Croatia had around 20-25% Serbian population when the war escalated in 1991.

Bosnia had even worse mixture of three ethnic groups:

Muslims 40% (nowadays called Bosniaks to distingish them from Bosnians which might refer to all people in Bosnia and Herzegovina), Serbs 40% and Croats 20%.

These numbers are out of my head and might not be as accurate but rough approximations.

Of course mixed marriages and people declaring as Yugoslavians were present all around the ex-Yugoslavia and especially in Bosnia.

I think the perception of each other was the key issue there.

Serbs view Slovenians and Macedonians as separate people (something like Russians view Estonians), so there wasn't that much of emotion when Slovenians declared independence (there was a brief intervention though).

However Croatian independence was a completely different story.

Serbs had the idea of slav unity, and Croats were the integral part of this idea.

Serbs did not accept the Croatian independence mainly because of that.

A long trail of controversial historic events between two nations, religion contributed to the animosity between the two nations.

To understand my answer you need to get back to 1844.

, when Ilija Garašanin wrote Načertanije .

In that document he made base plan of making Greater Serbia .

Greater Serbia should include Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, big part of Croatia, Montenegro and Northern part of Albania.

That idea was revived by Stevan Moljević , Serbian Chetnik who wanted to clean up parts of holy Serbian land (term which was used by Chetniks, reffers to Greater Serbia) from Croatians, Bosniaks and other people who weren't Serbs.

In late 1980's head of Serbian communists became Slobodan Milošević who had views similar to Stevan Moljević and Ilija Garašanin.

He wanted to finnaly achieve making of that country.

However, Slovenia and Macedonia were not imagined as parts of Greater Serbia, as Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina was.

So there was great war between Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks and Serbs .

There was war between Slovenian people and Serbs , but as Slovenia wasn't so important for making Great Serbia, war ended very fast.

About Macedonia, I would say that there was a few factors: its peripheral position, Macedonian politics attitude, who considered a war as last step - (they were affraid, that country would implode and would be divided between its neighbours).The significant reasons seem to be Macedonian late nationalism and US preventive diplomacy in the region as well.

The very logical explanation is that, Macedonia, the country simply didn't possess almost any weapons.

Worth to mention that both government and society were confused over the war objectives.

About Slovenia I would agree, that homogeneity was an important factor.

Also relative economic stability.

However, one should remember about 10 days war in Slovenia and Albanian-Macedonian crisis and riots.

Question: It seems that during the breakup of Yugoslavia there were civil wars during speakers of the (then officially) same language - Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, but not, e.g., between Serbs and Slovenians. Is there any specific reason for this?

Why were there civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia, but not in Slovenia or Macedonia?

In Bosnia & Herzegovina there were regions where Serb populations had lived for a long time, whereas in a country like Slovenia, the majority of people living there are Slovenian. Macedonian people were not convinced by war except as a last step and possess almost no weapons.

Whilst it's not true that there were no conflicts involving Slovenia or Macedonia, one reason why conflicts were less significant is possibly that Slovenia and Macedonia each had a clear ethnic image, whereas Croatia and Bosnia had significant Serb populations. Considering that the army was almost exclusively Serbian, this made conflict much more likely in Croatia and Bosnia. It's also possible that Macedonia's lack of arms and desire to avoid conflict in general was a contributing factor.

One possible reason is that Bosnia and Croatia where Serbs had historically always lived and the same could not be said for Macedonia or Slovenia.

There may well have been a clearly defined ethnic image of Slovenians and Macedonians that was not present in Bosnia or Croatia.

In the base of Macedonia, it's possible that a lack of arms was a contributing factor.

Conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia were more likely because they had a significant Serb population and the army was almost exclusively Serbian.

Macedonia was seeking to avoid conflict at all costs.

It is not really true that there were no conflicts involving Slovenia or Macedonia.


It did exist but no one is sure what it was.

The making of such was split between different orders and each only knew how to make the next step in the chain.

It was delivered via tubes and could be "thrown" towards the enemy.

Some of those were man-portable, other were ship bound.

Sometimes, you could find it in jars.

The best guess is that it was a petroleum compound but the exact formula is lost.

Source:

John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium in three volumes.

The below images comes from the 11th century Madrid Skylitzes manuscript.

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

Greek fire was used by the Byzantines, often on their war boats, as an incendiary to enemy vessels.

The formula likely consisted of some mixture of naptha, sulfur, and niter among other compounds.

This was basically a Byzantine napalm and was effective at sea because the fire could continue to burn (due to the underlying subtances being highly flammable and not strictly water soluble) even with some water hitting it.

The byzantine war boats fired the ignited substance under pressure allowing some distance to be reached.

The greek fire certainly did exist, there is a sufficient number of evidences supporting that, including drawings like this one:

It was apparently some flammable substance that would be hurled towards enemy boats to ignite them, definitely not an explosive however.

The exact formula is lost so you will only find some guesses as to what it might have been.

It was pitch/tar and oil that was ignited and sprayed if my memory serves me correctly.

It may have had other ingredients (saltpetre, sulphur?) to the mix but it was essentially pitch/tar.

If dynamite existed at that time I doubt they'd have bothered with such a messy and dangerous substance as pitch/tar!

I am Greek, so I know something about such things.

Greek Fire was an early form of napalm that was used as a naval weapon because it could burn on and in water.

Question: What was Greek fire?  I read in my history book that it was a flamethrower. But in certain fantasy movies it's been portrayed as something similar to dynamite. What was it dynamite or what? Did it even exist?

What was "Greek fire"?

history.stackexchange.com/users/16/Daniel says Reinstate Monica

It was a flammable substance that could be hurled as enemies. It was effective at sea as it could continue to burn even in contact with water. It was essential pitch or tar and oil that was then ignited.

Greek fire certainly did exist and it was used as an incendiary weapon at sea. Its exact formula has been lost, but there is speculation that it contained sulphur or some petroleum compound.

Greek fire was a form of incendiary weapon, likened to napalm, that was launched towards enemy ships.

The exact formula for Greek fire has been lost, through there is plenty of speculation that it contained sulphur or a petroleum compound.


As far as Union states go, this table seems to provide accurate information.

However, the info on Confederate army is very incomplete.

You can find statements that North Carolina supplied the most soldiers (125,000) to the Confederate army all over the Internet.

The original source seems to be a speech from 1904 by Hon.

Theodore F. Davidson in Raleigh:

She [North Carolina] was next to the last state to secede from the Union, and in February, 1861 she voted against secession by 30,000 majority; yet, with a military population of 115,365, the State of North Carolina furnished to the Confederate army 125,000 men. .

.Of

the ten regiments on either side which sustained the heaviest loss in any one engagement during the war, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey furnished one each, and North Carolina furnished three.

North Carolina furnished from first to last one fifth of the entire Confederate army, and at the surrender at Appomattox, one-half of the muskets stacked were from North Carolina.

Given the nature of this speech, it is probably not the most reliable source of information - and it doesn't actually claim directly that North Carolina supplied more soldiers than any other state.

In fact, if you search hard enough you will also find statements about Tennessee and Texas as the states that contributed the most soldiers to the Confederate army (not backed by numbers).

For comparison one would need to at least look at the number of soldiers supplied by Virginia but that number is very hard to find.

I finally found the book

The numerical strength of the Confederate army from 1912 which lists the stated numbers of enrollment into the Confederate army: Virginia: 175,000 Florida: 15,000 Georgia: 120,000 North Carolina: 129,000 South Carolina: 75,000 Mississippi: 70,000 Alabama: 90,000 Tennessee: 115,000 The book goes on to compare these numbers with the actual population and comes to the following conclusion: In the light of the facts just stated we must conclude that the Southern writers quoted by General Adams have, in their zeal for the honor and glory of their several States, greatly overestimated the number of men contributed by the same to the Confederate armies.

This would be more probable a priori, than that the leading men in the Confederate army and Government who were at the sources of information, and who ought to have been well informed, should have so enormously underestimated the strength of the armies of the South; but the tests to which we have now submitted the figures given by these State historians demonstrate their error beyond the possibility of doubt.

They must be cut down by several hundred thousand.

A large element of this error is to be found, as I have suggested, in the failure to observe the great number of re-enlistments that undoubtedly took place, especially in 1862, when the terms of service of nearly all the Confederate regiments expired.[Pg 61]

This duplication, in the opinion of the military Secretary of the United States, reduces the total by twenty per cent.

For us this means: If you look at the "official" numbers then the state that supplied the most soldiers was Virginia.

The sources claiming otherwise apparently took the statement

"North Carolina supplied many soldiers" and turned it into a superlative.

As to the real numbers: I'm not sure whether they are known by now, I couldn't find anything resembling a reliable source.

Just to back up Wladimir's post of the inaccuracy of the numbers.

Josh Howard a North Carolina Historian stated in this article "The time has come to get it right," said Josh Howard, a research historian with the Office of Archives and History in Raleigh.

"Nobody has gone through man by man looking for the deaths." North Carolina is only believed to have sacrificed the most men to the war.

The article linked above is from 2010 where he set out to figure out if this was true or not.

However as of now he has completed a study that attempts to put the myth to rest.

Additional Info: Josh Howard's Study Page (No results listed)

After a year+ of work it looks like he came to a conclusion.

He states that the North Carolina death toll would be closer to 32000-35000.

Also when taking into account the inaccuracy of other military records from other states it looks like North Carolina still comes out on top.

From this article In all likelihood, North Carolina still ranks first in fallen Confederates.

If records in Raleigh are wrong, it’s a good bet the rest of the Southern states have inaccurate counts, too.

Second-place Virginia, also reviewing its count, is moving much closer to North Carolina in the number of dead.

He also concludes that:

But both Howard and Purser admit the numbers will never be 100 percent accurate.

Extra Interesting Info:

He did debunk the myth that the first casuality for the south was that of soldier from North Carolina.

A Virginia captain beat Pvt.

Henry Lawson Wyatt, a 19-year-old from Tarboro, to the grave by nine days;

One would think that the answer was Virginia (the most populous Confederate state), but the answer apparently was North Carolina on both counts (contribution and casualties).

"Which Confederate state supplied the most troops" and "fought for the Confederacy" are slightly different questions.

Tennessee actually supplied the second largest total of troops--more than North Carolina--from any Confederate state.

But more than 30,000 of those fought on the Union side.

(And not including 20,000 African-Americans.)

An issue which may be particular to East Tennessee is that many men served both sides.

In my research on Hawkins County, Tennessee, I have so far found that nearly 8% of the men who served in Confederate regiments at first later served in Union regiments.

While a few joined US Volunteer regiments for frontier duty, most deserted their Confederate TN regiment and enlisted in a Union TN regiment.

Virginia acknowledges in its records that it provided over 155,000 troops for confederate armies while North Carolina acknowledges over 133,000.

Interestingly, Virginia also provided over 32,000 soldiers for the northern armies, among them General George Thomas.

Question: Of all the states that elected to secede during the American Civil War, which one had the largest number of citizens who actually fought for the Confederacy? I would also be interested if anyone could find which state had the largest number of casualties.

Which Confederate State provided the most troops in the American Civil War?

North Carolina is believed to have lost the most men to the war. Tennessee also supplied a large proportion of troops.

There is no agreement on which state provided the most troops in the American Civil War, but it is widely believed to be North Carolina.

It is believed that North Carolina supplied the most number of soldiers in the Civil War

It is claimed that Tennessee supplied more troops than North Carolina.


The Maya did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_religion , in most cases this seemed to be more extaordinary and in a way of trying to get the attention of the gods in extreme circumstances, such as famine, flood or alternately kings ascending the throne.

As did the Aztec: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Human_sacrifice , although I have never seem much in the way of explanation other than some considered it an honor to be sacrificed.

Depending on how you view the sacrifice witch burning could be another, this was religious and a punishment but again it depends on how you define it.

Followers of Kali in India.

It was never a mass thing, but supposedly at some point a certain Kali temple sacrificed a human every day.

It still happens today, but a lot less frequently.

One non-scolarly source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,322673,00.html

Also, Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#History_by_region ) has a pretty extensive list, including such unusual and unexpected examples as ancient Russia

(Rus apparently sacrificed slaves/prisoners of war to Perun);

pre-Buddhist Tibet; and Ancient Hawaii.

Carthage might have practised mass infant sacrifice to their gods in particular Baʿal.

The practices increased as Rome was defeating Carthage culminating just before the destruction of the city.

Theses source do support the assertion: NY Times and The Punic Wars by A. Goldsworthy.

However, this is not clear cut: What actual proof is there for Carthaginian child sacrifice? asks for evidence.

The accepted answer points to several sources disproving it.

As with many things to do with Carthage, the true might never be known.

I am leaving this answer here (despite the down votes) as I feel that it is more balance now and offerers both sides of the argument.

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

One example of human sacrifice was a practice called Sati in India.

It was a Hindu tradition, mostly restricted to some northern regions of India.

Under Sati, a widowed woman would sit on her husband's pyre and burn along with him.

What differentiates Sati from other examples above, was that this practice was voluntary and the decision rested with the widow (in theory, if not in practice).

There's some debate as to how this practice started, but it seems to be more social than religion in origin.

It was discouraged/banned by several rulers, leaders etc.

It was also one of the very few Hindu customs outlawed unconditionally by the British (in 1829).

Nowadays, sati is very very rarely followed.

One form of human sacrifice that I hadn't considered was the act of retainer sacrifice that was exercised in ancient Egypt as well as Mesopotamia.

Whenever a king or ruler died, his entire household could be executed to serve him in the after-life.

There even seems to be indications that this happened in ancient China as well.

This form of sacrifice

I suppose could have been considered an honor, but I'm not sure those who were sacrificed necessarily agreed.

In my reseacrh for a book that will be set in West Africa, I found information that some tribes there used human sacrifice to appease their gods by sacrificing prisoners that were captured in battle.

There was a reference that the Kingdom of Dahomey may have been the most prominent in this, but I couldn't find anything substantial to confirm that.

Romans: I know they're not the first ones to come to mind, but their gladitorial games started as a tribute to the spirit of the deceased

(i could be wording this very bad).also

they twice buried alive a couple of greeks and celts, once during the second punic war, after cannae, on an interpretation of the sibillyne books.

Adding up an example, if you read the old testament, you see numerous examples, most famously when Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, of course we know it didn't happen.

And since Abraham didn't doubt this is God's will, I think this was in a way accepted, even if it wasn't the daily practice among Jewish people that time. consider the followings: 1 Kings 13:1-2 Wisdom

14:21-23 Judges 11:29-40

I am pretty convinced in ancient Jewish culture

this thing was more common, since the Bible don't register all the sacrifices.

These sacrifices weren't as regular as in Mayan or Aztec culture, but existed.

With spaced regularity, here's another: Vikings sacrificed every 9 years people in honor of Odin.

Saxo Grammaticus in his books about the history of Denmark reported it.

Check this question for a more complete set of answers.

While for the Aztecs or Mayans, talking only about the Mesoamerican ball game , I think there are discrepancies on how the sacrifices where made.

If I remember correctly, folklore tells that Mayans sacrifice the winners of a "ball match" (because there was some kind of reaching the right to be along side to the gods), while the Aztecs sacrifice the losers of such matches.

But in general, all Mesoamerican cultures held human sacrifices in religious grounds (Olmecs, Toltecs, etc.)

Question: Looking at the Area 51 commitment page, I realized that some of the questions that were originally suggested there never got asked here, so I thought I'd add some of them. Something else I would like to see addressed as part of this question would be the reasons behind the sacrifices. Were they tied to religious or superstitious beliefs, such as appeasing gods, or were they done as a form of punishment or revenge?

What cultures did, or do, perform human sacrifice on a regular basis?

Cultures practicing human sacrifice include the Mayans, the followers of Kali in India, Carthage, Vikings and tha Sati also in India.

Various cultures across human history have practised human sacrifice, ranging from Mayans in the Americas, to Vikings, Romans, ancient Indian civilisations and Tibetans.


The United States was in the "new world."

As such, it didn't START with many of the class structures common to European societies.

As such, it was regarded as a good "testing ground" for theories of a classless society stemming from the Enlightenment.

The "founding generation," even though heavily tilted toward the upper class, was greatly influenced by these ideas, and wrote them into the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents.

America has never been a fully "classless" society.

What HAS been true is that many of the class barriers that stood in people's ways in Europe didn't operate particularly well in the U.S.

In an achieving society, the ethos has been to promote a meritorious individual from the "wrong" background over a mediocre one from a good background.

Western European countries have largely adopted "American" ideas of a democratic meritocracy, to their benefit.

Some of them now arguably have more social mobility than the U.S.

But the U.S. will probably long maintain its reputation as the site of the global "lab experiment" in equality.

The last "class" concept I can think of the U.S. having would be segregation.

I believe it was the "everyone is equal" movement (The whole " sitting at the front of the bus " thing) that lead to our current class-less "everyone is equal" state.

Even if somebody can rise to height, does not make a society classless.

Class is not an sealed set of people: people always can move from one class to another.

You possibly confuse class with a social estate or caste the two being more closed divisions of society without easy ways to change.

What distinguishes class (by Marx) is the possession of the means of production.

That means if a society has those who possesses means of production and those who do not, the society is not classless.

Income also is not a distinguishing criterion: a hired manager can have higher income than a farmer, but still he belongs to a different class.

Not sure I understand well this question: Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"The answer is staring you in the face."

Why is the founding document of the United States, often memorized by school children, traditionally read in public on Independence Day, not sufficient to answer this question?

It is the document upon which everything rests.

By law, a Constitutional Convention can be convened and a new constitution of the USA can be drafted and ratified.

But the United States as a nation remains, as per our Declaration, and therein is stated quite clearly the idea of a "classless society".

(There is much more here - but alas, I have not the time to elaborate at the moment or cite some of the original sources.

Perhaps in time - see the wiki on the Declaration for a starting point.)

Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution contains a long discussion of this concept.

(personal opinion, the discussion extends longer than useful, and seems focused on responding to an argument that isn't in the book).

I believe the question is founded on (one or more) false assumption; "The United States is a class-less society" is a conclusion, not a pre-existing idea.

(others have discussed ad nauseum the imprecision involved in "class-less").

During the 1740's to 1780's, the institution of "class" was dysfunctional in the united states.

(Here, I reject the marxist definition as lacking in utility; I refer to the more contemporary notion of gentry class vs commoner).

The things that made that institution work in Britain (including the presence and active intervention of a King, a populist Tory party, and a strongly established Church of England) were absent in America.

One could argue that classlessness is an artifact of Republicanism of the period, but even Republicanism was fundamentally oligarchic.

(one of the reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation was the "licentiousness" of the American populace.

Writers of the period lamented the notion that craftsmen and tradesmen and merchants were involving themselves in politics, which was unacceptable).

But Republicanism within the British constitution (such as it was at the time) was different from Republicanism in the Netherlands or in Switzerland - I think the argument very quickly drowns under the difficulty of defining Republicanism and Classlessness.

Question: The United States is often referred to as a "class-less" society where anyone can rise to any height. Leaving aside whether this is actually the case or not, when and how did this idea originate? Was it part of the Enlightenment ideas of the founding generation, or was it something that came along later?

When and how did the idea of a "class-less" society originate in the United States?

The movement that everyone is equal led to the development of a class-less society.

The idea of a "classless" society in the USA probably started with the civil rights movement.


In 1799, Napoleon went from Egypt , where his bases were, through modern Israel to Acre (Acco).

In Acre he attempted a siege , lost it, and returned to Egypt.

Acre was the northernmost point he reached in Israel.

Napoleon was not in Israel before or after 1799.

Other places he passed through in Israel were: Gaza, Jaffa , Haifa, Mount Tabor and Jordan River.

Modern Israel, Egypt, Palestine and Syria were all part of the Ottoman Empire during the time of Napoleon.

Under him, the French led an expedition from Malta to Egypt, which later travelled through modern Israel, capturing several port cities on the way.

The answer is then yes, Napoleon tried and succeeded in taking a couple of cities in what is modern Israel, though they were only briefly held and his real objective was to take Egypt.

He did not ever return to the Middle East.

It should be noted that there are several places today in Israel today in which one might find Napoleon's legacy, such as the cannons on Mount Carmel in Haifa pointing towards Acre.

Yes.

Napoleon did take several coastal cities in what is today considered modern day Israel.

You can read about it here .

Modern Israel (1949–) did not exist during the life of Napoleon (1769–1821).

Question: Did Napoleon Bonaparte ever try capturing what is today considered modern day Israel? Did he ever visit the land independently of capturing it?

Did Napoleon ever visit Modern Israel?

Napoleon did travel through Israel and take several coastal cities.

Yes, Napoleon did visit and successfully capture cities in what is now modern Israel.

Yes, Napoleon did pass through the area which is today modern Israel.

Napoleon did successfully take a number of cities in what is now modern Israel.


Japan shut out the West very successfully so its emergence from isolation was all the more abrupt, and Japan's history to 1945 could be seen as trying to integrate Japan's self-image and national mythologies, and its powerful social factions, into a post-feudal, industrial state.

And quickly!

The Japanese leadership made a quick but effective plan to survive integration with the world, in a way that would avoid what they saw happening to China and preserve as much as possible of Japan's old order.

This meant taking Western technology and acquiring great power status so as to negotiate all matters from a position of strength.

Empire-building was an obvious characteristic of a great power, and Japan went about acquiring an empire.

They quickly deduced there were only two sides to imperialism, and they determined to be the ones sticking flags in the ground.

Because the Europeans (and US) could negotiate directly with one another, they mostly avoided conflict when building their empires.

Japan, an outsider could not, and as a latecomer was seen as a threat.

The Japanese saw this resistance as hypocrisy and racism, which is why relations were good up until the 1920s, then soured.

The end of Japan's isolation wasn't voluntary - Japan was forced out of its isolation by American gunboats sailing into Tokyo Bay.

Basically, they saw the world being divided into colonizers and the colonized, and decided they'd rather be the former.

(Despite being theoretically closed to all outside contact before then, Japan did get some news from the outside, including descriptions of the Opium war in China.)

Military modernization was a high priority from the beginning. Without going into too much detail, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, they colonized Korea and a few others, and jockeyed with America and European countries, including Russia, for influence in China.

That was just how the international game was being played at that time.

Then they were hit especially hard by the Depression of the 30s.

They depended a lot on export trade, much more so than America.

Japan wasn't nearly as rich, either financially or in natural resources, so you can imagine how much worse off Japanese workers were when things hit the fan.

With the other developed countries putting up trade barriers to protect their own workers, Japan decided it was important to have a self sufficient economy, which meant controlling markets and natural resources in more of Asia.

As in Germany, hard conditions at home made foreign invasions an easy sell.

Factions of the military stirred up old resentments against Japan's rivals, told the people that complete submission to a military regime was the only answer, and next thing

you know it's WWII.

That's a lot of details omitted, but it's a pretty big subject :

P.

After the Meiji restoration, Japan wanted to model itself on the western colonial powers.

So, it sought an colonisation and expansionist policy as was common for Western powers of the time.

By the early 20th century, colonial empires were already set and Japan had to invade other countries to expend.

They chose to do that instead of remaining a small nation which could be conquered themselves.

In addition, conquest of the land of Asia was always on the table -- remember the (failed) Korean invasions of 1592-1598.

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

Industrialization required access to resources that are not readily available on the Japanese islands.

Japan didn't just decide to be a colonial power, they decided to be an industrial nation as well.

That's the key.

Today, we have free and open markets, so buying raw materials on the open market works.

Prior to WW2, however, if you needed a steady supply of material from a faraway place, you needed to achieve political or military control of that place to guarantee that supply.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species," which postulated a world of "survival of the fittest," in which animals, at least, had to "eat or be eaten."

That is, nothing lived in isolation, but rather in a Hobbesian world of "all against all."

Coincidentally.

or not, international relations of the late 19th century assumed that kind of flavor, whereby whole COUNTRIES had to be colonizers or colonized.

Faced with this choice, Japan elected to be a "colonizer," with relatively easy targets nearby in Asia, including Korea, Formosa (now Taiwan), China, and Indochina.

The "gun was pointed" at Japan when America's Admiral Perry stopped by in 1854 and pulled Japan into what was then the "modern" world.

After ending isolationism, Japan modernized.

It built guns, ships, and planes.

Then it started invading places under the Emperor's orders.

The invention of a chemical process that made gunpowder cheap may also have contributed.

Also, I would not call Japan "interventionist" so much as aggressively imperialistic.

Question: For much of its history, Japan was a very isolationistic country, and in fact, even in modern Japan, there is still a strong isolationist attitude among the Japanese people in some ways.  During the 20th-century, Japan has participated in the Sino-Japanese wars, the Russio-Japanese wars, First World War, Second World War, and various other wars. What caused a country with a long history of isolationism, to become so involved in external conflicts?

Japan is known for being isolationist, so what cultivated its history of interventionism in the 20th century?

During a period in history, Japan decided to model itself on Western colonial powers. Industrialisation required resources that were not available to them.

As the colonial empires continued to expand and grow in power, Japan decided that remaining isolationist was a risk. Additionally, industrialisation required resources that weren't readily available in Japan, so they would have to look for them selves. Added to other foreign intervention and cheaper gunpowder, these factors all made Japanese expansionism both more feasible and more likely.

As other world powers started to consolidate a more imperialist presence around the world, the Japanese felt that pursuing a less isolationist agenda was a safer policy rather than be conquered themselves.

Industrialisation required resources that weren't readily available in Japan, so they would have to seek them elsewhere.

Foreign interventionism forced Japan to play a less isolationist role in the world.

The emergence of cheaper gunpowder may have made expanionism more feasible.