I have a theory where I compare the Roman slavery era to the current wave of automation, fortunately our automation do not commit the huge suffering slavery inherently does, but they are analogous in the sense that slaves could do everything a Roman could do for free, so, how did unemployment was avoided back then?

This question mostly comes to me as a result of personal curiosity. I don't really have any real experience with studying history beyond a highschool level, so I don't think that anything particularly academic in terms of its target audience would be too helpful.

Let's say I'm a decently rich Israeli (~90th percentile for wealth), maybe a recently converted Christian who wants to escape the persecution of the Empire and spread Christianity to the peoples of the Far East. What would be the most practical of methods for me to get to somewhere like Han Dynasty China or one of the Indian kingdoms? Would it be better to sail there from the coastlines of the Arabian Peninsula/the Red Sea? Would it be best to travel via camel caravan or something of that nature? What would my travels be like? Would there be any semblance of the Silk Road that long before it was actually a thing? How long would my travels take?

All I've ever read said they referred to themselves as Roman but never what others called them

Excuse me if I can't formulate this question as well in the title. My question really is to sort of get in the mind of political players of that time since they all sound so immature and impatient to me.

I'm currently reading "The Plantagenets" by Dan Jones. What interests me mostly are Henry II's sons. The 3 oldest, Henry, Geoffrey and Richard, rebelled against him. In Dan Jones's words - they rebelled against their father because their assigned inheritence, which was already confirmed, came with no actual *present* land ownership. Henry the Young King had been mentioned as having been in debt because of a lavish lifestyle, which prior to his rebellion, made him run to the French king, seemingly to plot against his father but also to preemptively pay homage for the duchy of Normandy iirc. Henry I relented and gave his son an allowance. Also have to point out how the 3 brothers were given slaps on the wrist for rebelling and given some castles to hold and made to swear an oath to their father, who was eventually betrayed by his 4th son, John, in another rebellion after which, according to writing, he died from shock iirc.

In retrospect - the entire situation around his sons rebelling against him makes them look like very spoiled brats and I doubt that's the case.

In any case, the succession in England from the time of William the Bastard to the 13th century had had a more-or-less peaceful transition on only 1 occassion - Richard. But even his rule was disputed by his younger brother, John, who was already even made, by his father, a successor to the title of High King of Ireland and who is described by Dan Jones as the backstabby-kind. John is eventually trying to seize power opportunistically in a comical fashion, discrediting the loyalist chancellor William Longchamp, while his brother is kept basically under house arrest in Germany, then allying with the French king after his brother's return, and then groveling for forgiveness to his brother which led to the event where he massacred the French garrisson at Evreux, former allies.

So my question is - with my modern understanding - are they really just spoiled brats?

I pulled my grandfather's Navy record from World War 2, and could use some help interpreting. Some of it is easy enough, but any help translating the following acronyms:

From Service (Vessels and Stations Served on):

• USNH Pearl Harbor, T.H.- What is "T.H."?
• SM Sch New London, Conn.- Is this a ship based out New London? Base?
• NAAS Corvallis, OR- What is "NAAS"?
• NAS Whidbey Island, Washington- What is "NAS"?
• PSC USNB Bremerton, Washinton- What is "PSC USNB"?

From Ratings Held:

• AS
• S2c
• HA2c
• HAlc

How was life different for a rich black man and a poor black man in America in the 1940's, 1950's ? Even in the extremely racist society, was the rich one treated better ? in the perception of whites, I mean

I know this sounds absolutely ridiculous however, I've been thinking of all the crazy ways societies across the world have tried to gain the upper hand on each other with improved weaponry. Figured this would be the best place to raise a question this obscure. Apologies if this has been asked before/ breaks subreddit guidelines (this is my first post ever and I'm really curious/ procrastinating studying for my ochem exam).

I was recently looking at the Russian revolution, and I found out why the dates were confusing, they were using a different calendar. Does anyone know why they used a this instead of the universal calendar where it originated from? Thanks!

This might be a weird question, but I’m trying to remember the name of a certain history book. When I was a kid around the year 2000 or 2001, I used to read this world history book with lots of pictures in it. It was like one of those World History books by DK (not sure if it was DK). Some of the topics included the Boers, the Opium War, King Louis XIV, The Blitz and lots of others. I vividly remember a picture of ships being sunk during the Opium War, and Boers in a kraal repelling a Zulu (or some other group) attack. If anyone thinks they remember, I’d sure like to know.

There are reports of the Allied generals being horrified (obviously rightly so) when they arrived at the Nazi concentration camps, and not expecting to see the level of depravity they witnessed. With that being said, what did they expect to see when they arrived. In other words, how much of what the Nazis did there were they able to keep secret from the Allies? Were the Allies expecting to find a bunch of surviving Jewish prisoners? Or did they know most of them would be dead, but maybe not the level of torture the prisoners had to endure as well? Also, how much of what went on in them were they able to keep secret from the German population?

Everyone likes to hate on the French army for capitulating so quickly after the war started. Is this justified? Was that really because they were bad or were the Germans just that good? I had a history teacher in high school who used to tell us that the U.S. would have surrendered just as quickly if it was in France’s position. Does that claim have any merit?

[deleted]

Both Poland and Czechoslovakia had large populations of ethnic Germans, so it seems reasonable that a few of them may have found their way into the armed forces in some capacity or another. However, I also know that the relationship between the ethnic German populations of both countries and the respective states was tense at best, which may have led to policies against this.

Nevertheless, if we do know of any who fit the description, what would have happened to them? Unceremoniously shuffled out as diplomatic relations deteriorated? Shot as blood traitors by Hitler's forces? Integrated into the Wehrmacht as it pushed through?

Has comparison of the oldest fragments of text revealed any stylistic or narrative evolution?

I'm not super sure where this question might belong, so please let me know if it's better suited elsewhere!

I am having some trouble in understanding the way ships were named in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For example, did Britain or Spain prevent merchant shipping flying their respective flags from having the same names as warships? Can there be a frigate Reddit as well as a schooner Reddit? If there was no regulation of merchant names could you have more than one "name" of a ship operational? For example, brig Reddit sailing off the coast of Spain while brigantine Reddit is in the Caribbean?

The question is very interesting to me as a Russian since information I've managed to gather is very confusing and self-contradicting. When we talk about overall tank and human losses of the Third Reich, it's pretty clear that majority of them were inflicted in the East. When we talk about naval losses, it's obvious that overwhelming majority of them were inflicted by the Allies.

But I've met very different perspectives about German air war experience, both in Russian and English. Many Russian historians still argue about how many Germans were shot down during war with the Soviet Union and how big their kill ratio might be (no one denies it was much better than their Soviet adversaries but I've seen estimates wobbling around between 1:2 and 1:4 and even up to 1:10, although the last one seems kind of ludicrious), including different years (some Russian historians argue it was extremely bad for the Red Air Force even in 1945, and that's quite a claim).

Estimates of destroyed/heavily damaged Luftwaffe planes vary from as low as 9 000 or 10 000 (Beshanov) to up to 22 000+ (Anokhin), and I'm not sure which figure is correct. Many authors claim they check different German sources, someone named Ghoeler is often brought up, but some sites in English cite him as unreliable, so I have no idea who is biased and who is not. Moreover, there is still no consensus about the degree of Soviet air success even if we don't count casualties since some find it to be "pretty good" while others find it's performance to be awful till the last day of WW2 (Beshanov claiming Eastern Front was much softer in comparison with the West IIRC).

TLl;DR: What was the distribution of German air casualties by WESTERN point of view? How many German aces died in the East? What Germans themselves thought of the Soviet air forces in 1941-1945? Was Eastern Front really as humble in comparison to the Allied air battles as I'm often told to believe?

I've read that, while cities in late Roman-Byzantine North Africa (Morocco to Libya, not Egypt) were very Christian, the interior was populated by Berber tribes who were Jewish or pagan. How did Judaism spread that far afield in a fairly isolated region?