I'm mostly wondering if this actually happened or if it was just created so Mel Gibson was more likeable.

I've been rewatching the Great War series on youtube, and it struck me how critical railway lines were for supplying front lines, moving troops and such for the occupying german army.

To me, the Hindenburg line seems like an even more complex and involved task, yet they built up several dozens (or even hundreds) of kilometres of defenses, with multiple lines of trenches, concrete bunkers, garrisons for troops. Was building railway lines that much more difficult, or were there other reasons that prevented them from doing so?

My Ancient Civilizations course is currently studying about Ancient Rome, and I was wondering what happened to Crassus after the end of the First Triumvirate. I couldn't find it on credible websites or in my book.

So I understand that throughout history various forms of birth control were attempted (ex: gumming up the cervix, different herbal preparations) although likely these methods were not effective. The most effective method was probably coitus interruptus and regular breastfeeding and as we know, compared to modern contraceptives, those have a low success rate at preventing pregnancy. Given the fact that every instance of penetrative sexual intercourse therefore had a medium-to-high chance of causing pregnancy, how did that change the dynamic of married life? As a woman myself, I can't imagine the prospective of getting pregnant YET AGAIN after being through the process multiple times previously as was the norm historically would be something I would personally look forward to. Given that, I wonder if the ever-present risk of pregnancy led to any one or multiple of the following:

1. Less sex overall within married couples compared to what is present in modern times (which apparently is about on average 1-2x per week)

2. More forms of non-penetrative sex being used for enjoyment -- although I've read that oral sex itself historically was not as prevalent/morally permissible as it is now

3. A situation where the husbands, who didn't bear the physical burden of pregnancy, would end up with a drastically mismatched sex drive compared to their wives, who seeking to avoid the discomforts of pregnancy, would seek to avoid sex, leading to less harmonious marriages on the whole or increased incidence of extra-marital relationships for men

4. if women were constantly breastfeeding to avoid getting pregnant, if breasts were not viewed as the sexual objects that they are viewed as in modern times

Hannibal is rightfully remembered as one of the most masterful generals the world has ever seen. He crafted alliances with ease, managed to forge cohesion amongst an army comprised largely of disparate mercenary elements and inspired ferocious loyalty amongst his men: why then didn’t Carthage capitalize on the enormous opportunity they had to capture Rome and reinforce him to the extent that he needed? (Thereby all but ensuring that the senate would sue for peace on favourable terms)

I would also like to know about other none white soliders to, such as Indian troops.

I get the reasons for the split happening, I just dont understand why states leaving the union resulted in war.

I was surprised recently to find out that the Dalai Lama having received money from the CIA as part of their Tibetan Program and the American anti-China efforts in the 1960s was a confirmed fact (including by Dalai Lama himself), as I had thought this was more of an unconfirmed rumor or conspiracy theory.
The wikipedia article on the CIA Tibetan Program is pretty interesting and even links to some of the documents that have now been declassified and made public on the Office of the Historian of the US Department of State.
But I'd like to know from the more knowledgeable historians' perspectives on a few related issues:(1) To what extent did this US involvement help propel the Dalai Lama as an internationally renowned spiritual leader?
(2) The program and its support also for Tibetan guerilla forces seems to have been cut after the 1972 US-China approximations - but were there other long-lasting consequences of this program?
And finally:
(3) When did this US involvement in Tibet become public knowledge and did it create a scandal when it was revealed/declassified?

Thank you!

Doing my research for a doc project on the mapuche peoples, I stumbled upon a young mapuche man, who feels fairly certain that his great-great-grandfather was exhibited at the "Mapuche" display of the infamous human zoo that was organized in 1883 in Paris.

Indeed, his grandmother told him that her grandfather was brought to Europe by a German man alongside his family, and that they lived in a park alongside a group of "savages who ate raw meat and spoke an incomprehensible language".

This indeed seems to fit with the events, as the Mapuche were brought to France by one Richard Fritz, and were exhibited next to a Selk'nam family (from the southern tip of South America) with whom they were asked to interact by anthropologists.

I am truly stunned by this story, and wished to know if there have ever been other stories told by people exhibited in human zoos. Being exposed as objects for the pleasure of Europeans, I find it quite moving to finally hear their voices, even if it's more than a century too late.

I Started reading the greek plays and other authors and get into this doubt. How much of the greek mythology was really a religion and how much were entertainment/known to be fiction? At what point the history of the gods and heroes were only dramaticized and written down the real religion or were just free-style entertainment?

Lets say that if future historians could look into the vast comics/movies/screenplay, how to differentiate Marvel universe from the many "real" religions?

In an episode of Hogan's Heroes, kommandant Klink orders Hogan and two other prisoners to work in the motor pool area. This is done as punishment. Was that actually allowed during World War II?

I stumbled upon a Wikipedia article about the USS Midnight, a steamship of the US Navy in the Civil War. In the article, it notes that the Union's "systematic attacks on salt works seriously impaired the Confederacy's ability to remain at war". The section seems lacking in sources and it made me wonder.

Was salt critical to the Confederate food supply chain? And if so, did lack of access to it really have a measurable impact on the outcome/longevity of the Civil War?

Apparently Vikings didn't actually have horns on their helmets, so where did the popular image of a Viking with a horned helmet in stuff like Skyrim, the Marvel Universe version of Thor sometimes, How to Train Your Dragon, etc come from?

Whenever I see line formations, I can't help but think how much smarter it would be to spread out. My reasoning is that it would be much easier to hit and kill someone in a line formation because they're grouped up. Spreading out would make it harder for the enemy to hit your army.

My question pertains to when historically do the Russian people cease seeing the czar and his government as the rightful rulers of Russia. And similarly, when do modern Russians view that cut off. I would imagine it occurred sometime between the coronation of Nicholas II and the Revolution. Though I may be wrong.

Specifically the part where they would share Poland between them. Like did Britain and France just turn a blind eye to this or was there proper reason?

I’ve heard conflicting stories of Columbus. The first is that he estimated the size of the world correctly, but overestimated the size of Asia. This would make sense.

The second story is that he used Paolo Toscanelli’s estimation of the circumference of the world, which was smaller than Eratosthenes’.

The third is that he incorrectly converted Arabic Miles into Italian Miles. They all seem plausible, so which one is it?