Whenever I see reenactments of small engagements between phalanx’s and other formations of greek soldiers, they look really clunky, boring, unorganized and don’t seem as epic as they would’ve actually gone down back then. Can anyone explain how battle back then would’ve actually looked like?

I recently was gifted a book from 1950 by Life magazine. It's called Life's Picture History of World War II. As I was looking through it, I was struck about how little mention of the Holocaust there was in it. In fact, I could only find one paragraph that summarized the camps liberated by US soldiers in 1945. There were no pictures of the camps or liberated prisoners in a book that was full of them.

My question is this: was this normal at the time? If so, why? Were all the facts not fully known even after Nuremberg and other trials?

I feel as though the Holocaust has become central to most narratives and histories about World War II, and it was surprising to see it barely mentioned at all in a book that was published just a few years after the war had ended. If this was normal in 1950, when did that change and what were some of the causes?

For example, how were dents in plate armor repaired? What about holes? Was it cheap to have armor repaired or was it more common to throw damaged armor out and have it be replaced by a new one? Did they just hammer most of the damage out, or were there any complicated processes that they used?

What innovations allowed Russia to defeat the steppe nomads that until then had always manage to defeat or outspeed the countries they were invading?

Was the only motivating factor money? I just can't put myself in the mindset of a Greek farmer during 40BCE and agreeing to fight for some random guy that just appeared in my home town.

Why would I fight for this guy? Why risk my life?

Were generals promising un-rejectable amounts of money? Maybe the chance of actually dying during battle isn't that high, but it's still a risk. I know that a lot of the time battles would end in retreat/defection so it's not like they're fighting based off loyalty to the empire. Was it primarily mercenaries, or locals that generals were recruiting?

Did it actually... change the course of history. I feel almost as if, these Generals and leaders, toward the end of the republic kept cycling through dictatorships, in reality, by the end, it feels like the Roman Republic was already an "Empire" in all but name, always having 1 to 3 people dominating at the forefront of politics; unlike how it was prior to Sulla or so.

If say, Rome stayed as """"democratic"""" and """republican rule""" as it was prior to Sulla, and prior to the decay of the institutions of The Republic, would that have functionally changed any history onward? I think people catastrophic the "Death Of The Republic" a lot, even moreso prior to Caesar's generation.

They could've went south take the natural resources in Africa then go to war.Because like materials played a huge role on WW2.

What I mean is, if I were to show you a list of Englishmen who fought in the 1715 and 1745 risings, with their demographic information — eg what county they came from, whether they came from the countryside or a city or market town, their socioeconomic position within society, their particular religious convictions within protestantism etc — listed, but not which army they fought in, would an historian be able to discern who fought for whom? And on which demographic bases would they make this discernment?

Germany had a large foreign volunteer and conscript force made up largely of people who had just had their country invaded and occupied by Germany- most of whom had a resistance movement as well. what was the motivation for some of these volunteers and how did Germany keep the foreign fighters in check?

Could you consider one of them the "capitol?" Was one of them considered the "main" state? I have a hobby project that concerns each country with a revolution during the Age of Revolutions, and it's tough in the case of Germany because, well, it wasn't *Germany* at that time in the way it is today. Many thanks!

I saw a post on another sub that discussed the recent increase in using insects as a food source. One poster countered that there has never been a civilization that survived with bugs as their main food source.

So is this true? Do we know of any civilizations that counted bugs as a major part of their diet? Or were there some that thrived without having to eat some of the more common…and delicious…sources of protein we are more familiar with?

I have a passing familiarity later dueling traditions in western Europe, but everything I've encountered regarding dueling in Medieval and early Renaissance Europe is about judicial duels that were notionally settling some dispute.

Acknowledging that Medieval Europe is a lot of time and space, I am wondering if there was any tradition of formal or semi-formal honor dueling during that timeframe? If I insulted somebody, was there a risk they were going to challenge me to a duel, or was this purely a later development?

I know that smoking is more common among lower-income groups in the United States. But I was curious as to when this income-gap emerged.

When I've searched this, I've basically only found 1965-"present" (articles 5-10 years old). I'm curious as to when it shifted and how fast - at least up to the 20 year rule.

Kinda curious on when the first income-based data on this was made public, too (I assume marketing firms knew much earlier, but I meant when it started getting more academic or media notice).

Hope this is ok! My relatives fought in WW2 on opposing sides. My grandfather was drafted by the Japanese and I don't speak Japanese so I doubt I could find anything about him

However I recently learned that his brother fought for the 442nd infantry regiment! Makes me very proud to know my family fought fascism when given the choice. He unfortunately had a very common last name though, so I haven't had luck finding anything about him.

Are there any resources historians can recommend for finding more in depth detail about individual soldiers? Especially WW2 and the 442nd infantry.

Maybe the question is really dumb, but for some reason I cant find a logical answer. Im not very good at history but I am a little interested in it and I was playing Assassins Creed Odyssey which takes place in ancient greece. And it got me thinking, why did the Spartans want to start a civil war in the most advanced country in that time? What were Sparta’s motives to overthrow Athens when greece was a perfect country?

I find it kinda weird how the population of France went from 31 to 39 million people, Germany went from 25 to 65, and The UK from 20 to 43 million. Is there any logical explanation for why this happened?

I recently read that during World War Two, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) landed operatives in French Indochina who worked on concert with the Vietminh rebels against the Imperial Japanese & Axis aligned Vichy French colonial regime.

In reading about this, it is stated that Ho Chi Minh held “fiercely pro-American” views at the time; an absolute paradigm shift from his modern status as a strong proponent of Marxism & indeed the father of the present day Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Was it that US President Harry S. Truman did not respond favourably to Ho Chi Minh’s request for diplomatic/military assistance against the French as proposed by the latter in 1946, or was Minh’s eventual adoption of Marxism less ideological and more a case of strategic convenience (whereby he could receive aid from China or the Soviet Union more readily)?

Thank you!

In the book "Meine Kommandounternehmen" (My commando missions, Limes, 1993, p. 149) SS General Otto Skorzeny shares a conversation he had with Adolf about Nuclear weapons where the Füher give some statements about how thier usage would end all life on the earth and they should never be developed or used. How reliable is this source? And are there anecdotes to this of Hitler being generally opposed to the usage of nuclear weapons?

The Ryukyu islands were formally tributary subjects of the Ming and later Qing courts, even after the invasion by the Satsuma in 1609, and I often see it claimed that because that tributary status was convenient for Satsuma mercantile aims, they and the subject Ryukyu court maintained an elaborate charade that there never had been an invasion and the islands were independent of Japanese rule. But that seems a bit much, was it actually true that Chinese officials were totally deceived or was it simply a convenient fiction maintained because the Ryukyus were too far away to be worth contesting Japanese control?

As an aspiring historian, right now I am interested in the history of Germany and the history of south Asia. Could I specialize in and study both if I were a historian?

I understand things like working at home, but I read somewhere that kids were going to work in the early 1900s as young as 7! Have you met a 7 year old? I wouldn’t trust them to be alone for more than 10 minutes much less running machinery or taking client calls in an office. I guess it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around a child that young doing a job (and doing it well). I guess that’s a good thing because it shows how far we’ve come in terms of parenting, etc. Curious to hear some answers! Thanks!

Did people from ancient civilisation visit places for the sake of their personal interest, without any trading intentions or visiting people? Were there people willing to pay guides to be taken to a trip to Egypt in order to see and hear about its construction and history thousands of years ago? Were there professionals that made a living out of this market? If not, when did it start?

Like let's say, hypothetically, a Puritan from the late 17th century or an American settler from the early 19th century was just like:

"Alright, I'm just gonna go live with the Natives. Screw you guys."

Could they do that? Or would they just get killed by the local tribe? Or maybe even turned away?

I was speaking with a co-worker and we got onto the topic of Asia. She told me that the Japanese are just Descendants from Chinese prisoners that were shipped off to the island of Japan (in the same way Britain shipped off their criminals to Australia)

Is this true? I’m having a hard time finding out about. And a lot of things I’ve come up with are stating Japanese are closer to Koreans than the Chinese.
And having read “the rape of Nanking”, it is mentioned that one of the people who survived wanted to see a Japanese soldier so badly as he constantly heard they looked like the Chinese and he couldn’t believe it.

Which also led me to my next question, if this is true then how did Japan become such a vastly different race/country to China? If you look at Britain/Australia, while different they’re still similar no?