I’m looking for books on the Roman Empire covering the history between 192 CE through 476 CE, mostly looking for books on military campaigns/emperors thanks.

I’ve heard of groups like the SS Werwolfs but they didn’t seem to amount to much. Why didn’t the Nazis continue resistance by using guerrilla warfare on the occupying Allied powers after the war?

Assuming they wanted to be viewed as equals to the British, how did patriots view guerrilla tactics? My understanding was that the British saw it as "dirty" and not something a civilized society would do. But did patriots view it was necessary to defeating the British or did they think it was beneath them to do?

I am asking these things because I recently played the game Hearts of Iron 4 in which Japan is ruled by the emperor and is 100% fascist which lead me to these questions. It also reminded of how in a Civilization 3 scenario, the leader of Japan is not Hirohito but someone else. I think Tojo?

My dad told me that when the Emperor of Japan addressed his people on the radio at the end of WWII the average Japanese person had trouble understanding him because he spoke an archaic, formal dialect of the language. Is this true? If so, what did communication sound like beween him and the people who were close to him? Did the people in his inner circle code switch between talking to the Emperor and talking to other Japanese people? And finally, I’m curious about the origin of his dialect/where it diverged from modern Japanese.

My question arises due to the fact that I have a small number of German ancestors who were either bailiffs or burgermeisters. I was hoping I could get some clarity on what that would have meant for their day to day existence.

My mother is super interested in books on this topic and i’m looking for an extra christmas gift for her.

I looked through the rules and I think this is okay, but sorry if I didn’t see a rule that prohibits this.

Thank you!

Its easy to zap stuff with a touch if youve rubbed hair/fabric/etc together for a second or two, and it's not an uncommon occurance for people to 'zap' people or stuff they touch because of it. When it was seen or felt, was it thought to be a mystery, a godly thing, a thing only witches and such could do, or what? What was the term for it? No doubt it changed between cultures and ideologies, so how was it seen from what you can tell? Not really sure where else to post this question, if you have a better r/ i can post this question at please let me know. Thanks in advance!

I'm vaguely aware of why shields were uncommon in Japanese warfare; due to the prevalence of archery, horsemanship and polearm fighting in post-Nara, pre-gunpowder Japan. That being said, Japan has consistently had a culture of one-on-one dueling, both as part of warfare and without. Furthermore, there are many contexts in Japan in which sword fighting outside of armor might be expected.

In Europe, the combined prevalence of heavy armor, polearms and missile-based warfare meant that shields became increasingly irrelevant on the battlefield, but a specific type of shield remained prominent up until the pistol became a common sidearm; the buckler. A small, straight sword such as an espada ropera, arming sword or rapier was commonly paired with a buckler in either formalized duels or for self defense. A buckler was useless if you were wearing full armor, but when you weren't, and you were only facing one or a small amount of enemies like a mugging or street fight, it was perfectly suited for deflecting blows and tangling or grappling. From what I understand, conditions that led to the proliferation of the buckler were also the same in the Edo period of Japan, and yet the buckler either never took on there or no similar defensive implements were used.

Was this simply because shields having been rendered obsolete long ago in Japanese warfare, no one iterated on the large shield to make it into the buckler, suited for dueling and personal defense? Or were there other factors at play that made it so that the buckler was rare?

It seems both vastly beyond the capabilities of a 4-year old, and as the kind of story that would be useful in marketing him.

I remembered this time when our history teacher was telling us about this moment, when Germany invaded Poland with a huge and advanced army, they were rolling all over Poland, who tried to fight them still riding horses, like hundreds of years ago.

It was hilarious, and probably he was saying so just for the sake of proportion difference, but how advanced was Germany compared to their quick conquests at the start of the war?

When WW2 ended, the USSR took South Sakhalin from Japan, Kaliningrad from Germany, and gave North Korea, Manchuria, Pommerania, and Silesia to puppet regimes. All these gains were permanent except for the Soviet occupation of what would become East Germany. The gains made by the Western Allies included the British and French partitioning Libya, the US taking all of Japan's overseas territories except Taiwan and South Korea, giving the Dodecanese to Greece, giving Taiwan to Nationalist China, splitting West Germany, and setting up a puppet regime in South Korea. Of these gains, only the establishment of a capitalist South Korea, giving Taiwan to Nationalist China, and giving the Dodecanese to Greece were actually permanent. Why was this?

Edit: Imagine I wrote "come to be" instead of "come from".

I'm definitely what you'd call a "lay person."

I want to know more about the missionaries he funded: where they went, how successful their attempts were, etc.

I was watching a video lecture on the First Crusade and it was alluded to that though nearly all formerly Byzantine lands reconquered in the First Crusade were returned to the empire, there was an exception to this. Can anyone give some more information on this?

This is a trope I've seen in fiction as disparate as adventure novels (The Count of Monte Cristo), light comedies (The Importance of Being Earnest) and Dickens novels (Bleak House).

It's reasonable to assume, considering the amount of landmass both sides had, that they were both pretty equal in natural resources and economic opportunity. Was communism simply not able to take advantage of resources as much? I'd imagine that both sides of the conflict would be powerful enough to industrialize their selves and have modern infrastructure, even if perhaps political freedom was oppressed in the eastern bloc.