The Roman army during the first years of the imperial period seems to have been something entirely different to the Roman army of the third/fourth century. In the third century it seems to have been much less effective, more embroiled in politics and more provincial. Was the process of change in Roman army gradual throughout the centuries, or are there distinct turning points? There is third century crisis and the edict of Caracalla, but I don't think that these two events explain fully the changes Roman army had.

What would be the outcome of a king's death on the queen consort, her son and two daughters, if the king had appointed his illegitimate son as a successor to the throne in his will before his final moment?

I'm watching band of brothers and all the Americans have "fishnets" on their helmets. What purpose does this service, if any?

When studying how world war 1 started, Germany had nothing to do with it. If anyone is to blame it’s either Serbia or Austria-Hungary. Why was all of the blame put on Germany when they were just siding with their ally in the war and didn’t start any of it?

Hello everyone, I am looking for advice. Is there any source when I can see quick overview of political map over time? I have bad knowledge of ancient and antique history. For example, I just learned about hittites. I am aware of existence of most antique cultures, but I don't know they lifespan and start/death cycle of those civilizations.

I think that watching video which would show how political map would change over time - would help me at the start. Maybe break it down by regions, to be able to see detailed map of, say, middle Asia.

TL;DR: Am looking for a video which would show change of political map (and would briefly announce major events) of different parts of the world over time. Thank you!

I've never met anyone personally who would even dare deny that the Holocaust happened.

That said, I understand the logic (or conspicuous lack thereof) behind claiming it was all a conspiracy with doctored photos and falsified documents. Is there anything a modern historian can do to break through the conspiracy theorist mindset, and convince someone that the past very much did happen?

I'm currently gathering info on one county judge for an independent research project that will then become a book. The excerpt comes from a Texas newspaper from 1848 from a growing region of the state.

I'm not quite sure what this means in the context of free black people before the Civil War, as it's out of my area of expertise. Any help is much appreciated!

i was listening to Dan Carlin's King of Kings III and he mentioned this but didn't really expand on it. What do you guys think was the reason, and is there more stuff i can read about this?

[deleted]

I'm pretty sure I read about a treaty or convention from the early modern period that outlawed soldiers from digging shot bullets out of the dead or the ground and reusing them in battle since the bullets would spread infections and normally kill anyone it hit, regardless of the initial bullet wound, but I have no clue what it was.

I do research on the Palmyra Atoll, which was a Naval base during WW2. There are a number of small concrete structures, foundations, and materials left over from the war, but despite having charts, photos, documents, and a variety of other resources on what was built there, I'm still stumped on some of the features. Are there any good resources for common building shapes and layouts from that time I could look to for assistance?

I feel like he did but I'm not sure.

Wouldn't sources older than the past few centuries only have focused on the lives of elites? It's hard for me to imagine a pre-industrial society taking census including the lowest social strata that included lifespans. I feel like looking at expectancy even today, you see a pretty significant divide between wealthier people and the destitute. Even assuming that most people in history didn't live in total famine, wouldn't you still expect to see a rise over time as food production became more consistent/varied and healthcare became more prominent?

Also, to clarify, I'm not thinking that the Romans lived a full life at 35; but I would think that a life expectancy of 80ish seems a little steep without crunching the numbers.

Just noticed that I typed both “is” and “was” at the beginning of the first sentence. I meant to just put “is!”

He was not even charged with any war crimes while numerous members of the military were. Was he actually not involved or was trying the Emperor with crimes going to lead to more trouble than it was worth?

Hopefully this is the best subreddit to ask, but I'm not sure.

For a term paper that I'm writing for my Jewish Life and Thought class, I am hoping to show the evolution of Jewish thought about suffering after periods of suffering. Having had family suffer in the pogroms and the Holocaust, I've decided to frame my paper through these events. So far, my search about Jewish thought on suffering specifically after the pogroms. If anyone could help (even through a redirect to another subreddit), it would be greatly appreciated!

From what I have read the conditions in joining the Royal Navy were far from what stories and media make it out to be. You had a very high chance of death, worked in horrible conditions, and at the very end the government found any excuse to not pay you, which I believe is why many became pirates. So why did people join? Were they conscripted?

I’m currently reading Washington: A Life, a great biography of George Washington by Ron Chernow. An excerpt on the early stages of the Revolutionary War mentions Washington chastising his men for celebrating Pope’s Day, a colonial variant of Guy Fawkes Day, where colonial soldiers burned the Pope in effigy.

This made me curious about what the Vatican’s take on the rebellion was, given its tumultuous relationship with the British and the Anglican Church.

I am really interested in ancient culture, and I see a lot about Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse, but I cannot find anything even referencing Celtic mythology. And if we don''t know anything what could some reasons for that be?

So in my experience in the American school system we are taught that the Republicans and the Democrats used to be very politically different then they are now. We are taught they the Republicans used to be the party in the north that was considered to be more liberal while the South housed the Democrats who were the conservatives. We are taught that sometime post reconstruction that the parties "switched" and that the Republicans became more conservative while the Democrats fractured into the Northern and Southern Democrats, and eventually the southern Democrats dissolved or more or less integrated into the Republican party. But I've seen the argument online, from PragerU, and from my AP European History teacher that the parties never really did switch. The primary reason is due to the presence of the Southern Dixiecrats well into the late 20th century and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a larger amount of Democrats vote against it than the Republican party. So what I'm asking is if/when did the parties switch, and how gradual the change was. My teacher has used the statement "No one can tell me the exact date when the parties switched" and I would like to see if there is a concrete answer to that.

Referring to the armor (for those that could afford it) of the late middle ages, what would someone experience marching for two weeks straight without removing the armor (besides the helmet for eating and drinking)? I'm specifically inquiring about potential chafing, bruising, or other physical consequences.

I know this might not qualify as a history question, but I’m not sure where else to ask it.

I always wondered how after the many wars and violent incidents in Britain, Stonehenge never got knocked down or blown up.