After WW1 Italians withdrew from Anatolia because of internal reasons but why they left weapons which were later ceased from the revolutionaries ?

I'm especially interested in how (if this was the case) the political and socio-economic changed. Were the peoples of Ariovistus half nomadic tribes without much hierarchy? Did these evolve to stratified chiefdoms or other structures? (these last 2 questions are just to provide examples of what kind of answer I'm seeking)

I am aware of the differences of these two situations but it was the thought of the first that spurned me to think of the other.

To my mind though, the sentiment that both (Nazi's and Confederates) believed in such "non-human" treatment, it seems to me both are very conducive to that same sort of action and I wondered if there was any evidence of that?

In the American Civil War as you all know Virginia succeed from the Union and Washington D.C. was in Virginia (I know that it was it's own District). So of there were units from the Union like 150th Pennsylvania and Confederates had units like the 17th Virginia (Just random units). So what did they call the troops from D.C.? Did they call them a Virginia units or maybe Maryland (because it is near by) or did they call something else? (I am just wondering because I don't see any units like the 3rd D.C. or anything like that)

I’m looking for recommendations of both documentaries and books on the history of England 0-1000AD! If anyone could point me in the right direction, I’d be greatly appreciative. Thank you in advance!

I once heard that the gods of Egypt required gold and the gods of Greece required victory, but the Aztec (and other central American) gods required literal blood. Is this an accurate representation? EDIT: to expand a bit - I know that the Aztec practiced human sacrifice, but is it accurate to say that they believed their gods needed blood? Was it to appease angry gods? Did the gods need blood to protect the Aztecs from evil? Was this also true for other central American religions or was there something uniquely 'gruesome' about the Aztec gods?

May be a stupid question, but my interest in history is quite new (which is also why a post a lot on this sub) and the more I read it, the more I stumble across stories of, especially rulers, executing or insulting there political opponents in overly dramatic fashion. Or on a lighter note people declaring their love for an other with poetic words and gestures that would come a cross as melodramatic or sometimes even creepy nowadays. Where people back then actually that theatrical or is it mostly the fantasy of authors and chroniclers, who wanted to entertain their audience and maybe had political tendencies in mind and how do we know that.

Was the technology difference between the two wars too limiting on their impact (kamakizes etc)? Or is it simply due to the fact WWII was a much bigger scale and Japanese fanatasiscm had a stronger spotlight?

For example, Emperor Caligula was in a coma for 3 months apparently, how did he get water and food and not perish from this prolonged period?

I tried researching before asking but all I can find is that it beeped, but no actual mission?

Like did it just do that just to fuck with us? Or did it have an actual purpose I'm not understanding?

The year obviously can be tied to the movements of the sun, and the seasons. The month can be linked to the moon. So where does the idea of a 7-day week come from?

It doesn't fit particularly easily into either the year or the month so I can't really see any source or reason for it. There's the obvious Christian resonance with the 7 days of creation, so does it originate in the Christian liturgical calendar?

Right now I'm reading about Jane Addams's Hull House and the high rates of tuberculosis and typhoid among Chicago's poor. What did Victorian disease control look like?

Thank you!

My teacher claimed that Hitler had military bases inside Soviet Union concealed from the allies and that Stalin's plan was for Germany to attack the west and waste the allies power so Russia could invade all of them after.

I mean, I can see that this is somehow what happened in the end with the cold war affairs but I never heard that it was all Stalin's plan since the beginning to help a formal enemy to that extent just in the hope they will attack the west first.

Anyone knows something about this? Thanks a lot gents

If the south peacefully resigned from the Union, would the North still have taken military action? Was there anything legally holding the Union together, could the states have just asked for a divorce?

I am a rich Roman merchant in 100AD, would it be possible for me to take a break to another city/village or even another country to relax and unwind the same way people do now?