I hope most people didn't have experience in torture before being hired, so, how did the church hire people who could do this job?, and since people had no experience, was there a torture training program? or did people just learn on the march?, imagine how awkward the first day would have been...

After Germany surrendered, what did they do with the remaining soldiers? Did they question them, execute them, or simply put them in prison?

Widespread post-traumatic stress disorder and radical nationalist politics are both famous repercussions of the first World War. Has there been much research into a potential link between these phenomena? Were traumatized European men, returning from the trenches in 1919, more likely than non-veterans to support radically supremacist and oftentimes violent nationalist movements?

I'm not asking to speak on the morality of the executive order but on its legality.

I was thinking today about UFO sightings and how they seemed to proliferate as air travel became more popular in the 20th Century, which made me wonder - are aliens and flying saucer style UFO sightings a modern phenomenon, or are there any reports of such sightings before air travel became possible? I imagine when people saw something unexplained in the sky pre 20th Century they would probably understand it through religion, but I’m interested to learn more

because it seemed like it would be a lot smaller of a target. Also, they could get up when they needed to move

Many of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas were slaughtered or died from disease during the age of discovery. How did the first european invaders fare in comparison? Did they die en masse as well? Was it safer for an average soldier to go with a conquistador and fight the american tribes or to stay on the continent and maybe fight in some european war?

When Greek rebellions finally prevailed in the Ottoman Empire, why did they not choose to identify as Romans instead of Greeks? Being that the last state they would have been lived was the Byzantines, and they would have identified as Romans and not Greeks then, and that the area had for almost 2 millennia had been Roman, not Greek, it seems a little strange to me that the modern Greeks would look so far back to the original Hellenic Greeks as their parent civilization instead of Rome. Was this just about geography? Because that had never stopped people from claiming they were Roman before. Or because of the still-recent rebirth of Greek art and writing (which would’ve also been accompanied by Roman art too but I guess that’s besides the point)?

I need to do a very important project for school.

If somebody could list some sources that could be useful for my work i would be very greatful. The main focus is on the british rock bands and maybe some solo artists.

I‘m particularly interested in the years after 27 B.C. because I can‘t see why they would accept him, especially considering that they didn‘t know at the time that this was the start of Pax Romana right? If a senator would have openly criticized Augustus - would he have been in big trouble? Would Augustus go as far as eliminating him or did he have to fear that then the same thing would happen to him that happened to Caesar? Sorry for the imperfect english, I‘m not a native speaker.

Basically, why is there a stigma around historical content talking about something that happened less than 20 years ago? It seems to me that this stigma is pretty universal. I'm assuming there may be some history behind this?

I feel very confused about old history and how it's actually proven to be correct. I don't have a lot of knowledge on how it actually is proven to be correct so does anyone know how things like the trojan war and Jesus's story can be verified? If records exist tell me more about them. Also this is a repost on this sub so if you have no answer please what sub should I ask this question in to get a clear answer?

All we know about Caesar in Gaul is that he was a decisive, clever, and daring commander who persevered against overwhelming odds.

How do we know all this is true? Do we have other evidence other than Caesar’s self-aggrandising memoirs in the Comentarii de Bello Gallico?

It looks like later imperial historians also had vested interest in painting a flattering picture of Caesar - as the legitimacy of the emperors relied on Caesar’s name.

So, what is the actual evidence of Caesar’s exploits in Gaul - other than his own testimony? Could it be that he - with a numerically and technologically superior army - just steamrolled isolated pockets of local resistance? How do we know that an average late Republican general couldn’t have done the same?

I know that podcasts should be seen as entertainment rather than a proper source of knowledge, but I still wonder how much he gets wrong/right.

While trying to see if anyone asked about it on AH before, I've found a question regarding Duncan's book, with answer leaving me skeptical with Duncan's content as a whole.

At the same time, he does seem to focus mostly on laying out the events rather than giving his own analysis, and he tends to spend a lot of time on each revolution in question.

But still, I've realized that for many of those events I basically knew nothing at all before listening to his podcast, so it would be nice to know whether I can regard this knowledge as accurate.

EDIT: This thread was meant to be about Strategic Bombing, not Air Superiority(despite them being closely linked).

Speaking within the years of WW2 - Present, has air superiority ever actually have the highly talked about effectiveness top US Chiefs state it has?

In World War 2, did we really "cripple" the German and Japanese ability to wage war? Or was it a complete exaggeration and abuse of power(i.e firebombing in Japanese Cities). It's almost as if the air campaign never existed, the same outcome would have come to... The dropping of the Nuclear Bombs.

Moreover, it's tertiary purpose constantly stated is that is 'breaks the will' of the people(and their support) but history seems to show that all it does is the exact opposite. It unites the people.

This is especially true in Vietnam. The magnitude of bombs dropped was unfathomable, and the complete opposite effects the bombing campaign had, across the board, was nothing short of astonishing. It not only didn't accomplish what it set out to do, it hindered the war effort in literally every possible category(Lack of Peace Talks, Civilian Hatred, etc.).

Of course, Vietnam was a complicated matter, and one can argue that in hindsight, air superiority or anything for that matter, wouldn't* have changed the outcome.

Aside from being instrumental in destroying the enemy casualty wise, It's just not as effective as the books make it seem to be.

Last week l was watching documentary about bombing of Dresden on viasat history channel. There was story how general who ordered it was blamed and lost his social reputation. I would like to hear more about different attitudes, possibly from both sides. Why was it bigger war crime than bombing of any other city? Thanks in forward.

How were they viewed during these 200 years, and has art become more important or less? Since we go from a very classical view of painting to very abstract and extremely innovative, how did everyone react to this?

Moreover, did this territorial stability help with the concept of France as a country or nation as opposed to being a dynastic conglomeration of random territories e.g. the Habsburgs?

For context, I was reading books on medieval Indian history and so many of the kingdoms didn't think of themselves at all in terms of territory (other than perhaps the capital). Every king was a(n attempted) universal monarch, and the borders were always contested.

That same pattern, I was thinking, could be applied to everyone in Europe except, maybe, England and France up until the whole nationalism thing? So what made France especially, so different?

Maybe England as well, but England and the Netherlands had the same head of state for a while, and so did GB and Hanover. So that's another question - why does the Habsburg Empire get depicted as a bunch of random territories painted in the same color on maps, but England and Netherlands/GB and Hanover not?

edit: disregard the word "countries" after France, I didn't proofread obviously

I've been watching videos about rome on YouTube and alot seem to regard the whole founding myth about Romulus and remus and the seven kings as fact and just seem to skip over more details instead going straight to the late Republic and early empire.The story about the two twins is obviously a founding myth.But do we have any evidence that there really even was a roman kingdom to begin with.And why do even today "history books and documentary" regard the founding myth as true?