In John Green's Crash Course World History he had a common joke of "except for the mongols" which is a gag he applied to many blanket statements in the series that were made about empires. One of those was on Afghanistan where he explains that it was never conquered (except for the mongols) when explaining the nickname The Graveyard of Empires". Is this true and if it is, what did that look like and how did they manage to do this?

Hello everyone, so recently I was looking into the history of some famous works written by people in Ancient Rome such as Caesar or Cicero, and found out that we no longer have the original full and final versions of these works written by these people in their own handwriting anymore. Instead we have copies of them that we use today. An example of this would the Commentarii de Bello Civili. The oldest version of this work written by Caesar that we could find is a thousand year old version found in Italian City Archives. Also around 16 passages of the text are known to be missing. So it made me wonder if there is any works by anyone in this era that have survived in their original forms today.

Thanks, Splat

How did new tactics and technology change the way warfare was conducted?

What would happen if, say, a young lad in 1200 AD England discovers that he just can’t wear the ubiquitous wool clothing without breaking out in a continuous nasty rash?

At the battle of Agincourt, France had an army of 25,000 men, which if I'm not mistaken was considered a large army at the time. According to wikipedia the Romans had a standing army of 180,000 men for hundreds of years. How did they do it?

And what time periods were the "hattiest"? And for what discernable reasons?

Hi, can I get a recommendation for a book about eastern front? From my understanding this history that they teach us is from german sources and is whitewashed by german generals..

I asked on r/AskReddit it got removed..

I had the idea that the anarchists fought together with the republicans, like how communists fought together with the republicans (even though the spanish republic was pretty much communist but that's besides the point). But in a game I play (HOI4), if you choose it to be historical, the spanish anarchists "declare war" on the republicans and it becomes a 3 way war? Which I'm pretty sure didn't happen in real life, but it happens if you tell the game to be historical, so did it?

In the 20th century, the southern democrats were basically controlling the states which are republican nowadays and vice versa. Did this actually happen? Because I can't find an unbiased source on this

The Kraken is originally from Scandinavian folklore. However, besides Clash of Titans (where the kraken doesn't really look like how we usually see it depicted), the Kraken is also associated with the Greeks in Age of Mythology and in Theros, the Magic setting. Did Clash of Titans invent this connection or did it already exist? If the latter, where did it come from? If the former, does anyone know where they got the connection?

It seems to me (a lay person in terms of history) that there are not any "well known" history journals compared to science journals. I would say it is fair to say most people know of Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine.

I would also say it is fair to say that a lot (if not most) people have read or heard about some history book, or at least know that historians write books and not papers. So why is history written in books? Is it just that history literature takes up more words? Or is the reason more complex?

It struck me as incongruous that they had working steam engines - even a >!train!< - while their cannons were at the same time apt to banana-peel themselves, though I don't know if that's a valid criticism of the setting or not.

Ancient cultures, such as the Romans, are known to have an equivalent of fast food restaurants: thermopolia. It seems reasonable to assume people could leave with their food if they wanted to.
I was curious if there was anything they had that was equivalent to, say, a Pizza box, or a paper wrapper for a burger.

I'm using the Romans as an example and would be interested to hear about equivalents in any non-modern culture, but particularly ones where something like cardboard or paper as we recognize it would not be available.

As an extra part to the question, if something like leaves were used, was there any particular plant that was favoured in these cultures?

This might be a stupid question, but how did the Nazis know who was Jewish? I didn't think that kind of thing has ever been public knowledge or anything? Maybe i'm just dumb.

Geographically they seem to be in the same region of the Levant. However, I can't seem to find reputable sources that talk about Phoenicia becoming Syria or any relation between them. What is the relation between Syria and Phoenicia?

I was looking into Nicholas II the other day and kept thinking “why not just use your immense wealth to essentially purchase some type of support from the plebeians”. Obviously his and other European rulers like Antoinette were despised due to their vast sums of wealth and to me, by being generous with it you could rule more securely. I also recognize that there was an extreme disconnect between the ruling class the lower class so my question sidelines that reality.

Next I started thinking about how individual equality was not really a main stream idea until roughly 400(?) years ago. So to me it would make sense that they rulers could not lower their position/status or it would show that they were not worthy of that position.

Something like as a proletariat looking at a King in his chariot and thinking to yourself “Well of course he is king and I am not, just look at him”.

Was this the case to some degree and if so how much?

Also, was the acclimation of wealth in some sense pressured as Dukes or sub-rulers gained in wealth, thus requiring the rulers to continue growing their wealth so as to not seem as less than?

I was wondering, did any Native American tribes ally themselves with one side to attempt to overthrow the other? Were they treated equally bad by "both sides" (North & South) so they just stayed out of it? Did they attempt to destabilize the US government(s) and attemp to retake land? Did they engage in politics?

This question has been stuck in my head and bothering me all day. Have any tax records or collection methods been found yet? I remember something in the bible about bringing tributes to the temple but surely there had to be other ways of making sure people paid.

I would like to better understand how medieval leaders raised large amounts of infantry. I have done some more or less surface-level research, but haven't found a good enough answer.

High medieval armies were famously cavalry-heavy, but usually still included large numbers of foot troops containing melee and ranged fighters. Towards the late Middle Ages their importance grew once again but moved towards an army of professional payed troops.

I'd like to know how a feudal system produced foot troops in say England in 12th to 15th centuries. It's easy to follow where cavalry came as everyone has been taught how nobles earned their fiefs by equipping horsemen or giving someone a smaller fief to be able to afford it on their own (knights). However the closest to understanding the logistics on the infantry side is that "every able bodied man between ages 16 and 60 could be levied to battle with weapons and armor according to their wealth".

Most of us propably are familiar with the pop-culture idea of a medieval levy, but this is often vague. To my understanding this was primarily a defensive system for locals to organise in home defense. Still I'm confused about who even would organize such a levy and who selects who goes and who does because clearly every able bodied man between 16 and 60 has never been called to battle. Did knights have their vassals, the peasants, as a recruiting pool? Did they make agreements for foot men to be provided to war? Please someone tell me.