I have heard while listening to a documentary and lecture or two that the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was nearing a peace favorable to the Romans by the end of his reign but due to his passing and the succession of Commodus it would then not be achieved. Based on the sources at the time how true was this reality, at the very least of nearing an end to the wars after years of conflict?

Also a few further sub questions regarding the war:

How did the actual battles/fighting proceed? From what I’ve read Germania was a thick and dense forest at the time, so how did the Danubian legions fight the German tribes, was it a form of guerrilla warfare on the receiving end, a defensive formation on their side of the Roman border, formations similar to the late imperial period of smaller numbers, or where there actual pitched battles?

If peace were possible, with whom and how? From my understanding the tribes all maintained distinct identities and territories, rarely confederating as the Gauls did save for a few noted exceptions. Would all Germanic tribes in conflict with the Romans have agreed to this or would it be a certain few who took the most loss?

What would a Roman favored peace most likely look like that would have been satisfactory to the legions/Aurelius? Client state, tribute, territory etc?

Of course they were against Judaism, but were they of any particular faith?

I am regarding this specific part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Yet, during that period black American's were still in bondage. Treated less than dirt and many native American's were treated poorly too.

So, is it fair to point out that in many ways the Declaration of Independence that America celebrates by today's standards, was kind of hypocritical at the time it was written?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was having a conversation with /u/Sqeaky regarding the historicity of Jesus and I am unable to provide solid sources for the existence of Jesus being an entirely secular assertion.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Does anyone know where I might find a good, objective book on the history of the British Empire? I read Niall Ferguson’s book and bought Patrick N. Allitt’s lectures from the Great Courses, but they all seem to be liberal apologists (at best) for their motherland’s brutal imperialism. I’ve noticed that whenever they would address an atrocity committed by the British, they would typically stipulate it with a “but the Americans/Soviets/Nazis were worse!” Not saying that all of those arguments are without merit, but it doesn’t seem terribly productive.

I’m more interested in looking at it through a critical, historical eye. One that doesn’t shy away from the damage it did, and focuses more on the real-world impact it had on its subjugate peoples.

[deleted]

I am looking for a good book that gives you the entire run down of important events during each Chinese dynasty (Shang to Qing) as a gift for the white SO, but is having a lot of trouble doing so. Any recommendations?

Okay, so currently, from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Hinduism is a very large part of Indian Nationalism, to the point where a lot of people think if you aren't Hindu, you can't be Indian.
When did this become the case?
It clearly wasn't always like this, as the Sepoy Rebellion swore loyalty to the Muslim Mughal Empire, and that is (once again, from what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong) the earliest Indian nationalist revolt.

I have heard claims that the two only merged because of the British decision to partition India resulting in the creation of a mostly Hindu India that saw itself opposed to the Muslim other in Pakistan, was it really as recent as that?

Recently there was a question about the effectiveness of the Gatling gun during its first implementations. I wanted to pose this question involving another wartime weapon.

The "Tachanka" refers to a horse drawn cart with a machine gun mounted on the back. I learned about it through the game Rainbow Six: Siege, as its the nickname of one of the characters in it. My Russian boyfriend pointed me to an old propaganda video about the Tachanka, which portrays the soldier as a brave unit charging in the battle, blazing his gun and mowing down German soldiers.

However, the gun is mounted on the back of the cart, so I figured it would be more of a rapid mobile defense kind of weapon. I also find it hard to believe that this simple cart could fight against German soldiers armed with tanks, MG42's, etc. Though I do know that the Russian strategy during WW2 was just "throw people at it until it stops shooting at us" so it makes sense as a cheap way to employ heavy weapons.

How effective were these Tachankas in battle? Did they come anywhere close to the praise that the propaganda film portrayed?

[deleted]

I always hear about how it was one of the black spots of the western front. Hell, I only have the barest of ideas what the objective of the operation was. So I suppose I'm asking for a general overview of the whole affair.

I’m not sure that this question can be answered with historical texts, and therefore I’m not really sure that it can be answered. I know that many of the oldest texts we have deal with measuring time. My background is in Hebrew linguistics, so I’m particularly familiar with things like the Gezer Calendar, but I also know that royal annals were very popular in the Ancient Near East. Many of these annals would say something like “and X became king in the 13th year of Y, he was 17 when he came to the throne.” But going back further than that, can we see any development of the concept of age, or have there been other cultures that used something other than years to measure age?

I've been lead to understand that, prior to Sykes-Picot, there were a number of treaties regarding the borders of an independent Arabian state, but I can't understand exactly what they would have looked like, due to a certain amount of ambiguity. Did either the Arabians or the French and British assume that the border would be in one particular place, or was it all up in the air until after the war?

I suppose this can be an inflammatory subject, but I’ve been trying to research the topic and it’s hard for me to really grasp the causation. The Jewish people have been enslaved, murdered, oppressed and expelled so much in history that I was just blown away. I had no idea how much it occurred throughout history and how long it went back. Is there any information that has any insight into this? Historically speaking, what caused such a heavy backlash to the religion in comparison to others? Even Muslim-Christian relations seem to be in better standing than that of either in relation to Judaism.

I'm mainly thinking about the 19th century.

Did saying 'good day sir, how are you?' feel the same / carry the same meaning as saying 'what's up man, how's it going?' does now - or was life just experienced in a more formal way back then?

Would a me born 150 years ago would feel as casual as the me born now?