I heard that the celts (around the time of the Romans) had "trias", 3 gods melted into 1. Why did they do this? And what are some things I need to know about this religion?

These cities in the middle ages were already established and densely populated by the time the idea of city wide sanitation became a thing.

Were whole streets just demolished to lay underground tunnels and pipes?

Edit. Thanks for the answers everyone! This question has been bugging me for ages.

So, when Caesar arrived in Egypt, he said that it was his job as Dictator of Rome to settle a royal dispute between Ptomely and Cleopatra on who sould be pharaoh. He even stationed himself at the Palace of Alexandria as a judge to hear the case made by both parts. Did he claim that right because Egypt was a Roman client state? If so, when did Egypt become a client kindgom? How?

I know a lot speculate on his sexuality but I've never buyed the theory that he was gay, he seemed content with his relationship rather than repressed. I wonder if there was evidence he was asexual, I think I remember hearing he said he had no time for sex(I think he said that in ww1)

So I've been listening to the Hardcore History podcast 'Ghosts of the Ostfront', and I've been very curious about the Red Army leadership. It's mentioned in the podcast (and is a general assumption I have that I think is based on other half-remembered sources) that in the early stages of the Eastern front, the Soviet generals were of poor quality as Stalin's purges had resulted in the removal of the Red Army's better generals. This, in turn, explains why the Red Army in the early stages of the war struggled against the German Wehrmacht and the Blitzkrieg strategy.

However, listening later about the turnaround of the Eastern Front, such as Kursk and Operation Bagration, it seems that by that stage the Red Army suddenly has better leadership in generals like Zhukov, Rokossovsky, and others who help turn the tide of the war. It never seems to be brought up when or how this change in leadership happens, and it's gotten me remarkably curious.

Thanks in advance!

Were they only cultivated for the upper class?

Did Western empires ever attempt to colonize Japan? Was there any military confrontation? Did Japan's modernization and adoption of European styles of bureaucracy, industry, and military organization have anything to do with perceived threat of vulnerability to colonial powers?

Have we gotten any Columbus Day questions yet?

In the United States, Columbus Day is a Federal Holiday. However, many believe that it is wrong to celebrate a figure who enslaved and exploited indigenous peoples, and not to mention never set foot in North America (where the United States are located). Of course, some conservative takes (especially among the Italian-American community, which uses Columbus as a conduit into the country's founding mythos) instead would have it that the holiday should still be celebrated, as Columbus was only acting within the norms of his time, and that he should be celebrated for his feat of crossing the Atlantic (of course, the counter-argument typically runs that Columbus was particularly cruel, even for his contemporaries, and that Columbus didn't actually know he was crossing the Atlantic).

What does academic scholarship on the Caribbean, North America, and South America agree upon? Does a debate on the man's character exist in academia as it does in American pop culture?

While we know that the Nazis exterminated individuals that they considered mentally unfit, how did they treat their own soldiers who suffered from what is now called PTSD?

I know that allied soldiers suffering from PTSD were misunderstood, but I'm curious to see if the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo treated their own soldiers uniquely?

Would a Jewish person trying to flee the country have faced any significant obstacles?

It has been said that there basically was a trench line running all the way from the English Channel to the Swiss border which you could travers from one end to the other. But how where those ends defended? Did the trenches just run right up unto the beaches? And how did the Swiss border effect trench construction there?

I've seen deinstitutionalisation be presented with two opposite connotations, one that reveals us to be a cold-hearted and negligent society that thinks its a waste of tax-payers dollars to house the mentally ill. Or a society that wants to avoid the horrors of institutionalizing the mentally ill in state-run facilities.

I know European powers sent observers to take note of the goings-on during the American Civil War.

My question is why The Allies (mainly France) leading up to the war did not foresee widespread use of then modern combat tactics like trench warfare, wire obstacles and heavy machine guns? All three were used in The American Civil War and The Ruso-Japanese War. Granted even the Central Powers probably couldn’t comprehend the how deadly the combination of all 3 and much more would be.

Basically I found a neat book of some of his short essays on Early Modern Europe, and they aren't too incredibly old. But I know that while he was a pretty eminent historian, his reputation isn't as good as it used to be, and have seen a lot of criticism on his work on Scottish history. So would I be wasting my time?

Any suggestions for books that thoroughly talk about medieval armor during the middle ages?

I heard about it at the Stasi museum in Leipzig. Basically, the plan was to try and spark some sort of conflict in the West, relying on neo-Nazi ideals.

What confuses me is that, according to the museum (I THINK; it was in German and I can't read it well), the MfS added their own fake West German postmarks to the letters before they were distributed. Why was this done, instead of just... Having somebody in the West send the letters normally? How would they have been snuck into the mail stream? Is there anywhere I can get more information about this?

If King George would have conceded to the colonists and gave them representation with taxation in the first place, would this have prevented the American Revolution or was that always an inevitable event?

INTRO: Over the course of the recent months I stumbled over articles/statements claiming that the British empire acquired a lot of its wealth via exploiting its colonies. A recent expedition down into the Wikipedia-rabbit-hole taught me that from 1916 onwards the empire had to heavily loan from the US (private and public actors) to keep the ability to finance the war effort. That made me wonder if the overall financial drain and this financial dependance to the US might (or might not) have been a cornerstone for the geostrategical demise of the British empire.

QUESTIONS:

1.1. Was the British Empire exceptionally rich (state funds/private fund) compared to other relevant nations of its time?

1.2. If yes, was the exploitation of its colonies one of the main sources of these riches?

2.1. How much of the public war expenses were retrieved after the war (percentagewise and in absolute numbers)?

2.2. Were the loans, that Britain took from the US, ever adapted/reduced due to the reduction for the Germans?

2.3. Did the financial expense render the British empire geostrategically impotent in the long term (in general but also in comparison towards the US specifically)?

If any of you could answer even some of these questions (fully or partially) I would be very glad and thankful.

Were they appointed directly by the emperor? Inherited position? A mixture of the two or a completely different process?

Becoming Strategos benefited the noble families of the Roman Empire greatly, as it became the foundation for some like Nikephoros, Leo "The Armenian", and Alexios Komnenos to rise to the position of Emperor. But, how did they even achieve becoming a general in the first place?