So, the figure we tend to see in WW1 is tired soldiers staring at each other in no-man's land, until one inevitably charges and is mowed down, or wins a Pyrrhic victory., usually closely following an artillery attack.

​

So, why did the artillery ever stop, save for potential shortage of ammunition? Like, just absolutely annihilate the enemy's position, then their reinforcements, and so on?

So I'm asking about why people generally think Communism would never work out in the long run. Would it? Why didn't it previously? I know that Gorbachev played a decent role in the Soviet Union's collapse, but why else did it fall?

I heard that Rousseau (died in the 1770s) once speculated that chimpanzees might be humans in the “state of nature” that classical liberal philosophy discusses. The original humans before language, technology, social organization, and property.

I also remember hearing once of an ancient Greek explorer who went to Africa and saw apes for the first time (might have been gorillas or chimps or something, I don’t remember) and described them as a “tribe”, as if he were under the impression these were some kind of human, albeit very different than any he’d ever met.

Apparently throughout ancient, medieval and early modern history there was some understanding of apes being a kind of animal that was closer to humans than any other, with eerie similarities like their body shape and their ability to grasp with hands.

Were Lamarck and Darwin truly the first to develop theories of evolution, was there any awareness before them that humans evolved from apes? It would seem strange for Rousseau to suggest what he suggested, for example, if no one had ever heard of the idea that humans descended from apes.

REVIEWED The Maginot line sought to enforce the border between France and Germany during the Second World War and prevent a total invasion from the Nazis due to a whole charted front lined with artillery and fortified defenses (Brilliant idea in retrospect). However, if the Germans were able to successfully flank the line by crossing over by where it ended at the Belgium border, why did Britain and France not prepare more for an invasion of Belgium?

Thanks.

I am about to finish my undergraduate in History and I just finished writing my senior paper last week about lynching as a spectacle in Jim Crow America and the role of newspapers in understanding lynching culture and attitudes among white Americans. When I gave my oral presentation to my professor, one thing that came up that I think I could have done better on, is the nature of American press during the Progressive Era. I used two books extensively as secondary resources, Lynching and Spectacle and Popular Justice: A History of Lynching in America.

I believe I have a clear understanding of lynching culture, and I really got a lot from the books I read. For primary sources, I scoured ProQuest Journalism. I went through many articles describing mass lynchings (my focus was lynching spectacles, mass public events) but the newspapers rarely if ever tell you who the author of the article was and I'd like to understand the context of American journalism during that time period, especially when it comes to race relations. The book Popular Justice touches on class issues among the plantation class, poor whites, and the growing, urbanizing middle class, but unfortunately, I really couldn't find any articles touching on the incidents of lynching that I read about in the book.

I'd like to fill in the gaps that I missed here. I highly recommend reading both books I mentioned, I found them both really interesting in how they explain the gender and socioeconomic conditions that created lynching culture in America, as well as how lynching lost its power from over exposure in media... but I'd like to understand American newspapers better. Does anyone know anything more about journalism in the Progressive Era, especially within the scope of lynching reports? Do you believe that journalists were important historical figures in circulating lynching culture or do you believe they were just passively reporting the news? Do you agree with Amy Wood's opinion that lynching lost its power from over exposure and newspapers had a hand in making it less tolerable to white Americans?

I'm not interested in the reports made by Black journalists, I think that's been researched thoroughly and my focus is on understanding the white experience.

Also, has anyone read these books before? If you have, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.

I've been listening to a podcast talking about the origination of the modern war machine, and this seems to be the starting point of the nation state armies. How did it originate (e.g., conscription)? Where did they get the officers so soon after the revolution?

Just recently I downloaded a mobile strategy game about the Napoleonic wars. In the game, you can use grenadier units, and they are portrayed as throwing bombs at cities in the game animations, encouraging you to use grenadier units to siege cities and fortresses with their bombs. Are there any accords to reality? How did Grenadiers actually use their bombs? Because it seems pretty ineffective to siege cities with only grenadiers throwing tiny bombs.

I guess this is a wider question about the class structure in ancient Rome during the Republic period, but how is it that the Gracchi seemingly came from a noble patrician family, the Sempronia, and yet are considered Plebeians? At what point did the "patrician" blood dilute to the point that you were no longer nobility or is there some other mechanism of society at work here? And finally, what was the actual tangible difference between a patrician and a powerful plebeian like either of the Gracchi?

I know Mexico and Central America have pyramids but why not further north in the continental US?

Hi everyone, the question came up as I am reading a book about the fourth crusade by Jonathan Phillips, and the thing that bothered me is that in giving a brief history of previous crusades he doesn't mention Christians that where present before the arrival of franks/franj/crusaders. I mean Koptic, Armenian, etc. Instead he chooses to present is as a West Christendom v Arabs issue. And I understand that it is not that big of a deal, you want to be concise, but is also feels like he chooses to present it this way, oh, and he mentions recent American conflicts in Middle East to give context to modern readers I guess?? Which was not what I expected in a work about medieval history.

Anyhow, it made me thinking, before you read a book how do you check an author, so you don't end up reading highly partisan viewpoint unintentionally? Especially when you are new to the topic, and cannot make the value judgment for yourself.

And to be clear, in no way am I saying that Phillips specifically has an agenda, just that reading his book made me wonder about the issue.

After the fall of Rome in the west there was a worsening in the most famous classical arts: sculpture and painting.

However the former kept a certain level of quality, statues became more stiff and less detailed but still remained quite realistic; while on the other hand the latter became way more primitive with little overall improvement or change to be seen for almost a Milennia.

But then, all of the sudden during the 14th and 15th centuries, we begin seeing some of the most realistic paintings in history.

How did this happen? How did painting improve so dramatically in such a short ammount of time?

Was Grant just an anti-Semite and abusing his authority, or was there a genuine reason to expel the Jews and only the Jews from the region?

Well, thats the question. Is it documented via reliable sources during his active time, that some preachy dude was starting a new cult and proclaimed himself as the messiah, or was he just rather someone who came along with new ideas about how a society could improve and only in later years after is 'career', his persona was deified by others without his doing?

And to add onto this question, did they believe that they were doing their opponents a favor by slaying them on the battlefield?

Were these stories known by most people or just the literate? Did people think of the stories like we think of modern day superhero franchises with constant retellings of old characters and stories in the modern day and similar things? Or would it be much longer before the varied and somewhat different versions and stories were collected into the single mythos we know today? Of course this is mostly in the areas where the legends would have been told like Britain and France.

And finally but slightly differently, in 500 years time will modern day Arthurian stories be “integrated” or included in the mythos? If I wrote a book that became extremely popular where, say, it was “Lady Lancelot” rather than Sir Lancelot, could I expect it to become a common way of telling the story in the future?

I’ve recently become interested in the legends after reading the Epilogue of the book “Templars: God’s Holy Warriors” by Dan Jones, where he makes joking reference to the Holy Grail. Since then I’ve become rather interested in how many of my friends actually thought Arthurian legends to be historical fact...

This question has been vexing me forever since playing World War Two shooters, and in effect WWI shooters as well.

My premier interest would I suppose be the High middle Ages in Western Europe.

Maybe there's something I don't get, but why would a peasant living in relative peace and prosperity take up arms to help press his liege's liege's liege claim in a foreign land? From my understanding, he has no clue what he's fighting for, and no one even pretends that the peasant would benefit at all from fighting or winning the war. The knights I think I understand, they enjoy fighting and glory and honor.

If someone was caught stealing from a band of Native Americans out west, say - what would happen? Could/would the Native Americans exact their own justice, or did they have to turn the thief over to the American government? What kind of treatment or punishment could someone accused of thievery expect?