Seneca says he went vegetarian for a time, and liked it, but had to stop because he wanted to avoid being connected with some sort of political faction that was also vegetarian. Do we know what this faction was, why they were vegetarian, and why it was best not to be seen as connected to them even tangentially through diet?

On one hand, it seems to make sense that Germany would have a big fleet air arm since it was the second biggest naval power during that time. On the other hand, it (and essentially every other country) had no carriers and torpedo bombers weren't a big thing either yet, so what was it equipped with then? And what was its tasks, size and efficiency?

[deleted]

Troy, Utica, Ithaca, Syracuse...

​

Were these cities all founded during a period of Classical obsession? Why just New York and not other states? Or, if there are lots of examples in other states, why are the NY cities more widely known?

Movies always show great explosions and men flying left and right when a cannonball hits a rank of marching men but how did the impact actually look? Would it send dirt and debris in every direction? Did the cannonball just mow down a few men in a row? What did cannonball injuries usually look like?

Hello I'm new to reddit but i"m interested in history and had a question i'be been thinking of for a long time, How often could a solider choose his own weapons and armour, Did the army supply them with the equipment, did they give them money to buy their own equipment or did it come out of the soldiers pockets if it helps the point of the question is in norse times could a soldier get his chainmail and helm and choose to go into battle with a dane axe (Or any other two handed weapon) and just not carry a shield and sword/axe and could a medieval soldier chose to wear his gambison and metal armour (Not full plate as Im talking about infantry and not knights, But correct me if Im wrong) and carry a two handed war hammer, bec de corbin or laucrine hammer.

​

Note: yes I play a lot of DnD and fantasy games so a lot of my knowledge and mindset about medieval history comes from that but I am trying to get a major in history and teach grades 12s once I graduate, so I don;t know if that helps my reputation in this situation.

I frequently see depictions of napoleonic era and later hussars wearing their jackets like fancy capes with sleaves. Was there a specific reason or just because they were the cool kids?

Was it more brutal than World War 2? Or was it the reasoning? Or was it because we lost?

[deleted]

I've been reading about so called "cradles of civilization," one thing that struck me is that independent civilizations in Mesoamerica, Egypt, Peru, Mesopotamia, China and India all arose within a few thousand years of each other. Why didn't civilization arise earlier as intelligent humans had been around for millions of years and homo sapiens for hundreds of thousands? Is it possible that prior civilizations had in fact existed but because they may have been tens or hundreds of thousands of years old little or no remnants, artifacts, etc. survive?

I've been reading existentialism and surrealism philosophy and find my self interested in its spread during war era France. I have done some search but was unable to find much information, please help.

What made the armies of countries in world war 1 not adopt the lever action rifle and instead opt for bolt action rifles. What advantages did a bolt action have that the lever action lacked?

I saw it mentioned somewhere that there's a theory about them discovering the New World, is it really plausible?

In Sulla’s time, the republic was very volatile and rival institutions to the senate, like the plebeian tribune, had significant power.

Did Sulla truly intend to end this and restore the republic’s traditional power structure, or was he just a dictator using a meaningless precedent to hold power?

Not sure if you guys do this here - but I'm watching Black Earth Rising on Netflix and looking for a book recommendation on the subject. Highly recommend the show btw. It's on the proper role of international justice in the wake of genocide, it has John Goodman in it, great acting and cinematography etc. etc. It's set present day and not 100% accurate (different names/characters, probably composites of real people) but it struck me as how little I knew about the genocide.

I'm not a historian - but I do love reading books on history. I'm looking for "the" history book on the genocide - something that's accessible enough for a non-expert but that tells the larger story.

Thanks!

History has often derided him for allowing Germany to grow in strength in order to avoid war; what did he himself think of his actions later on?

hey people. I was wondering what is the best method when studying history; should I pick a time period and then learn the whole world at that period, or just pick a region and learn it since the beginning to present and then go to another region? what are down & upsides of each? and are there other methods that I should be considering?

The invasions of the other Axis Powers such as Japan and Italy get overshadowed. Soviet Russia invaded Manchuria on the same day Nagasaki was bombed, but without it, Japan might’ve been able to hold out longer. The Battle of the Bulge is overshadowed but it has 80,000 American deaths and 100,000 German deaths, and it was the final step in finishing off Germany since it exhausted all of its resources on the battle sending the army into disarray allowing the Soviets to capture Berlin. Those are just two of the many overshadowed important battles in World War 2.