If so, how often? And would people be punished for their crimes?

Especially considering how much vested interested there is in reception of these events to this day? Is it simply too soon after this conflict?

I know this isn't the kind of question that here are here usually, but it is something that I have encountered myself quite a bit (for example the different spins you get sometimes looking at english and german accounts).

I hope this is fine regardless and I am just curious how the professionals deal with is issue!

Curious if they referred to as Constantinople still. If so, when and why did it change to Istanbul?

Edit: I didn't mean "given away" literally, I meant to ask on the why did the Portuguese lose control over it.

Edit: Also great answers, I really appreciate them 👍

I've been reading about Caesar and how he managed to keep his legions fighting even after they'd technically completed their service, where they would have got their 3,000 denarii and a piece of farmland. He did so with a promise of more gold at the end.

And it got me thinking - it would be an absolute pain, and unfair, if a legionary were to die in battle in this extended service, and his family didn't get the 3,000 denarii, all of his back pay, the land, so on and so forth. I imagine this money and land was a really big deal for your average family - the sort of legacy that could change their lives for generations.

More generally it would be quite unfair too if a legionary in another legion, doing his regular service was, say, six months away from completing said service, got killed by a stray arrow, and his family got nothing.

Was there some sort of mechanism for ensuring proper compensation for families, and/or recognition of partially completed service?

Also, bonus question: did the legionaries have a way of sending their salary home, or somehow "banking it", while they were on campaign? Or did they just have to keep all their gold safe?

This question is inspired by the game "Total war: Shogun 2" which is about the Ōnin War. In the game, armies consists of companies of soldiers usually with 100~150 men in each company (IDK if "company" is the right word here). Each company has soldiers that are essentially identical in terms of equipment, social position, and experience. Thus, when you put your army into formation before a battle, one company might have 100 poorly trained and equipped ashigaru spearmen, to their right might be a company of 80 Samurai, all armed with katana. In front of them could be a company of ashigaru armed with firearms imported from the west, and behind might be 100 samurai bowman.

How realistic is this? Would you really see armies with hundred and hundreds of samurai, all formed into units like that? My understand is that samurai were a small minority in Japan, and I would have assumed that a real Japanese army would have only a relatively small number of samurai, who would be in mixed in with commoner militias, and serving as officers.

I have been unable to effectively understand this, especially in the murky context of Soviet-Polish relations.

Furthermore, how could anyone in Poland aligned themselves with the Soviets with this in recent memory?

I'm not sure if this post goes here, but this sub seems to be the place to get the most reliable, in depth answer for this query I've had for a while

I understand that there were moral implications, IE slavery, to the north fighting the civil war, and as I understand it seceding was considered treason by the constitution/laws, but what were the implications of allowing the south to secede long term? It seems to me this could've caused the 2 countries ( original USA and the confederacy) to adopt a political spectrum more left wing to center and right wing to center respectively, and as long as trade and immigration between the countries was still allowed, it would've caused much less political division modern day, at the cost of cutting potential military power in half. Was it based on the assumption of the 2 countries not being able to coexist and get along?

When looking at India it's Hinduism and then Islam, but no Buddhism despite the fact that it's founder was born there. Why is this?

The pillaging and looting is described in detail by Wikipedia, followed by three days of burning. However, a few structures survived, but it is only briefly mentioned anywhere on the web (in English) that it was once again destroyed in 1900 when the Eight nation alliance occupied Beijing during the Boxer Rebellion. This is not mentioned anywhere at all in any other Wikipedia page.

The citation goes to a Chinese website, so it doesn’t seem like an official source. It makes me question whether how significant 1900 was to the destruction of the old summer palace.

Sorry for using wikipedia, I presume it’s not wholly accurate / a complete account when it comes to history.

It was a society of slave owners, one of brutality to the race which was held in chains, but there seems to be an odd appealing beauty to cotton fields, sweat tea, and soft southern melodies. What is it ? How did it become this? And who was responsible for this change (particularly with regards to veterans organizations and Southern academics).

If I'm citing a bunch of letters in a paper, but don't have a bibliography to put the collection in, do I do the full citation for all the letters?

Thanks!

Basically the subject line. My wife and I are traveling to Greece in September and I'm trying to get a baseline education - we mostly do sites of antiquity when we travel. I used to think that a mildly dated history of a subject so ancient might not make a difference, but after The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (or what I could stand of it, anyway) I figure it's worth asking.

Put a different way: if you were going to suggest one book to provide a novice historian with a decent foundation on ancient Hellenic matters, is this the one?

Mods: sorry if this is too close to a "poll-type" question, I tried to make it directly answerable.

From what I've been able to find online there are certainly many kinds of walls found all over North America built by native American cultures, but I can't find references to established cities with walled boundaries such as found throughout the middle east around the same time periods.

The movie ‘Where hands touch’ has the main character going to school, being able to walk out in public, etc.

How accurate is this?