[deleted]

I understand that many cattle’s were build on locations which were easily defendable and offered a commanding view of the local terrain. But since cannons had made castles vulnerable and they had been in the age of gunpowder been replaced by star first and the like, surely WW2 era weaponry should have made short work of them. Yet places like Monte Cassino and Buda Castle proved pretty resilient and took a lot of effort to reduce, deposit massive air and artillery attack.

Why?

[deleted]

Follow up questions: Does this present, or has this presented, any inconveniences to its readers?

In other words...

If I'm Germany (or some other belligerent power) and I've occupied a city with a bunch of factories, how do I get those factories do actually produce stuff I want? Wouldn't factories need to be re-tooled? Where would they find skilled/unskilled laborers? Etc. Or were such factories actually rarely if ever used?

I mention the World Wars because they seem like the most obvious examples. But I am happy to learn about any other relevant historic (or even contemporary) examples.

Everytime i read about the holocaust, Majdanek is excluded from the death camps that were part of the Operation. However, while i was reading wikipedia's article about höfle's telegram, it came to my attention that its content mentioned the number of victims not only in treblinka, sobibor and Belzec, but also Majdanek. So, why isn't Majdanek considered as part of Operation Reinhard?

From what I know, almost all of Roman conquests were bloody sieges or battles that ended in the surrender of the conquered peoples. Did any people agree to join Roman territory for its advantages (administration, law, citizenship rights...) or all of Roman expansion was via militar conquest? Did Romans respect foreign peoples if they didn't want to fight them?

Off the top of my head I was thinking destruction of the Temple and Pontius Pilate.

The House of Terror is by far, according to Tripadvisor, the most popular museum in Hungary.

There were also glaring and extremely troubling omissions that I could not ignore. The unfairness of the Treaty of Trianon was described in details, but no mention was made of Hungarian aggressive irredentist policy. Second, the most important is that there was no mention of the Holocaust, with only one throwaway line telling that the Nazi occupation was bad for Jews. In fact, if you believe the museum, the only problem with Nazis is that they overthrew Hungarian "democracy" and ruined Budapest while defending it from Soviets.

The part about the communist occupation was mostly fine, although again, there was otherization of the communist regime as they portrayed the Soviet Union controlling Hungary directly instead of supporting the government who had a lot of autonomy in internal affairs (e.g. goulash communism).

Does there exist any evidence for Camille Paglio’s statement:

“Everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times: that as a culture begins to decline, you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse.”

This question is particularly about the ancient times, up until the middle ages.

From what I understand, to call Ancient Greece capitalist would be incorrect in a Marxist framework where-- as far as I understand it-- society "progresses" from primitive communism, to slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and finally to communism. I understand that Marx's view can be viewed as rather Whig-ish, so I'm curious how economic historians classify Ancient Greece nowadays considering the Historiographical differences that exist between 19th century England where Marx was living and modern day.

I'm a big fan of history, sadly I'm not to well equipped with knowledge (especially early human history)

So, I was wondering, is there a global theory that organizes the human societal evolution? Specifically speaking, which steps are usually needed for a society to "evolve" and are there specific steps so important that they are logically arranged into "eras" that build up to the societies we are rocking today?

I developed this questioning trough the idealistic idea of human society logically having to develop into a global community with no incentive for war like we know today and different issues than what we're dealing with today, so as an add on, are there theories on how this could happen, which specific steps we're lacking today and what are potential set backs we'll encounter?

To anybody reading and hopefully answering, many thanks! And if I'm violating any sub-rules - sorry!

I have noticed that there has always been a constant cycle of a number of small scattered nations in a region or continent combining into a few large powers, either through conquest or other form of unification, then over time fragmenting and eventually repeating the process.

It seems like this happens in independent cycles in Europe, Asia (specifically China), the Americas, Africa and etc. All of them going back to as much as we know about human history.

Is there is a term for this observation or a concept in historical studies?

The Decision to install a new colonial goverment instead of a loyal client state seems rather odd to me, especially considering that at the time the indigenious population had their own revolution going against the spanish and later the US.