If I’m living in a Communist country, do I own any possessions of my own or is it all state property distributed evenly to everybody? Do I get paid a wage? Might I get paid more than the next guy? I don’t get it. What exactly makes a country Communist?

I am doing a research project on Venice and I noticed that their is a succession of Doge's which were deposed and promptly blinded by their successors: Teodato Ipato, Galla Gaulo, and Domenico Monegario.

Was there any logical reason for why a succession of rulers blinded each other? Is it possible they used this as an alternative to killing?

So I have recently beat Assassin Creed Origins, and was wondering, how did the Egyptians build all this stuff? They have like giant statues that have held up for thousands of years and it fascinates me how they did all these things. The pyramids are like the coolest thing ever to me also. I would love some info on the subject thanks.

Hello, I am looking to find quotes (or full entries) of people leading up to 'The Great War' I've been fascinated by this idea that many of these people about to participate in combat believed they were fighting in the last great war. They believed that this was the final war. I am unable however to find any good newspaper articles, journal entries, or other first hand sources to get a grasp of what it was they actually were thinking in the lead up to first combat.

Julius Caesar repeatedly broke Roman law during his time as Consul of Cisalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, and Illyricum, but could not be tried in the Senate (where the Conservatives were very eager to convict him) due to legislative immunity granted by Consulship. Why were Consuls made immune to legal action? It seems an obvious invitation to simply ignore the Senate and to act unilaterally. It also seems that the only checks to this immunity, the 5 year term limit and 10 year waiting period coupled with the inability for a Consul to enter the city and the requirement that all candidates enter the city in person, were convoluted and extremely weak given that they were all overturned by the Tribune of the Plebs.

I am studying independently on the Bronze Age collapse mostly through youtube videos like the series made by the Extra Credits youtube channel and I wonder if the so-called "Sea People" that the Egyptians blame the Bronze Age Collapse of around 1200 B.C.E. on could have been done by some group of world voyaging Polynesians or if this is impossible. I've looked around the internet and not found anyone talking about this but the early Polynesian expansions yo the Philipines started around 3000 B.C.E. from what I understand. I am not a historian by any means so I could be completely wrong or misunderstanding this. I've heard that sweet potatoes in polynesian cultures seem to be proof of contact between them and South America, and I remember hearing that someone traveled across the ocean in some sort of polynesian style craft. Again I don't know if I'm misremembering this so I don't really have sources but I'll edit if I find them after this post. Since these people fared across the entire Pacific to places like Easter Island and Hawaii, I'm wondering if they could have gone the other way (maybe stopping throughout the Indian subcontinent or early China along the way?) And hit North Africa and been the illusive Sea People?

I can see some benefits for the slave soldier system: Namely, these soldiers tended to be very well trained, organised, disciplined, and armed, and as a result were very effective. The Mamluk sultanate is a great example, they managed to fend off the Mongols while eventually completely expelling the crusaders from the middle east. The Delhi Sultanate used it's Mamluk soldiers and generals to repeatedly beat back the Mongol invasions of India . The Abbasid's had very effective Turkish Mamluk's who were good generals. And finally, the Ottomans had the ever famous Janissaries, technically slave soldiers who were noted for their exceptional skill in battle.

However, I see a lot of negatives of the slave soldier system as well: These slave soldiers tended to form their own caste over time, and as a result could exert serious political power over the affairs of the state, and even the ruler of the state himself. Think the Janissaries in the 17th century, who deposed various Sultans and even killed one, Osman III. Or the Abbasid Turkish Mamluks, who also deposed various Abbasid Caliphs. Even the Mamluks became a state because they executed the last Ayyubid sultan and took power for themselves. Hell, you could even make comparisons between these Muslim slave soldiers and the Praetorian guard. These slave soldiers almost always tended to be very resistant to reform, because they were worried that reform threatened them. Take, for example, the Mamluks. I read that one of the reasons the Mamluk sultanate was conquered by the Ottomans was because they were fighting traditional style warfare while the Ottomans had adapted to more modern forms of warfare. The Ottomans themselves had a problem with the Janissaries when they were trying to reform the military as well, with the Janissaries either revolting or deposing the Sultan. These slave soldiers also tended to be a tiny amount of soldiers, making it very difficult for them to use any numbers against their foe. The Mamluks, using them for another example, were almost always outnumbered when fighting the Mongols and later the Mamluks

So, why did various Muslim polities use slave soldiers? why made these slave soldiers so desirable? and why did the slave soldier system almost always end up going bad in the end?

To be more percise, what do we know about the 'pagan' religion of the Tervingi and/or Greuthungi (and other germanic tribes) who would later combine into the Visigoths.

I am, however, not asking about the Ostrogoths who emerged from the Hunnic empire.

I've read from various posts on this Reddit over the years that Germany lagged behind Allied forces in military industrial output during WWII. Britain produced more aircraft, Russia produced more of everything, and eventually the US would enter the fray. This is a three part question: Did Germany overestimate their capacity? Did they simply not anticipate the war being one of attrition? And, why did Germany invade when they did instead of continuing to build up their military?

I’m enjoying Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey Maturin series of books and I am finding, though much about sailing I don’t understand and just gloss over, it is the little things that make me wonder. Such as, how was animal poop dealt with on the ship? I assume larger animals would have stalls with hay which is easy enough to scoop out. But what about cats? Cats to catch rats. Where would they poop/pee on the ship? I assume they had the run of the ship? Did they have litter/sand boxes back then?

Italy's military is famously incompetent during World War Two, failing utterly in North Africa and Greece. I've heard it was largely due to poor leadership, but what does that really mean and is that the only reason?

My Jewish friend told me that the reason why pork wasn't kosher is because eating it used to make people sick and/or die. Perhaps it was because pork wasn't processed, and stored correctly.

• Is there there any truth to this?
• If yes, why wasn't this a problem in the rest of the world? Pork is a huge source of food for us Asians.

I had a friend refer me here and I have rarely used Reddit and hope I am going about this properly.

I am writing an alternate history novel and it takes place during and around the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Thus the events will be different than recorded (though I am aware that it is debated about what truly happened, which is why I picked the place/time), but I do wish the setting to be as accurate as possible. I am going to have a clash of armies and would like to present it properly. I have looked on the internet and for books but come up lacking as I am aware there is little on that time period and those peoples, or I am just having really bad luck (this is more likely the case). What I have found is that the Hungarians (Magyars) and Turks were very adept at the use of the bow, even from horseback. The most I could discern for battle tactics was peppering the enemy with arrows before charging in with light cavalry which seems like common sense but also something doesn't feel quite right or is lacking. Also, I couldn't find anything on the Romanians at the time but then they were made up of a bunch of different peoples, and thus the term "Romanian" isn't truly accurate as each group may have been subtly different. Specifically I am looking for those from the area between the Maros and Danube rivers from roughly Pancevo to Orsova, the lands belonging to the supposed Duke Glad from the Gesta Hungarorum. If that is too narrow of an area to pull from, any input from that region would be appreciated. As stated in the title, I am looking for tactics in warfare, weapons, and armor common to those people. I also assume that some if not all of the little bit of info I have thus far may be inaccurate :)

I am a teacher trying to pull together a Nuremberg simulation, and I'm drowning in primary sources and court documents. I'm looking for any pieces of evidence that were key in the indictments of any of the defendants. War Order No. 154 and the Laconia Order are good examples with Doenitz.

We always see pictures, drawings and reproductions of a Spartan soldier as a really fit, muscular man (even if short compared to what we would think of a warrior today). So is it plausible this sort of collective imagination - a warrior covered in muscles from head to toe - or is it a bit misleading? Was the Spartan society so focused on really athletic body types and had the (so famous) hard train also an aesthetic purpose?

From what I’ve read, Hitler could have quite easily taken Dunkirk instead of letting the mass evacuation that occurred happen there. I was curious as to why? Or am I wrong, and would taking Dunkirk have been too risky? Could it have forced a British surrender if Hitler did take Dunkirk?

A lot of military organization in Europe kind of gets hand waived as "mercenaries" in a lot of surface level reading, starting with the Swiss pikemen and landsknect that everyone was hiring, right up until the French levees. One reads about cabinet wars and chess between kings and the like.

What I think is going on here is the hiring of men to raise individual regiments, but how does that work on a large scale? How do you have a common sense of discipline and cohesion amongst a bunch of individually raised regiments on the battlefield? And how did this system evolve over the couple of hundred years it seems to me it was in play?

Were new American soldiers allowed to to choose which theater they would be shipped to? Was fighting against Germany and Hitler considered more of a righteous cause than fighting the Japanese? Or vice versa?

Imagine that you just enlisted in your local enlistment office and they told you they would have your orders in a few days. During that waiting period are you hoping for the Pacific or for Europe?

Central Asia was basically an extension of Europe, demographically speaking, until around 1,600 - 2,000 years ago. Then, we had Asiatic people migrate to these lands.

Do we have any insights as to the demographics of these lands before 500 AD? I've always heard that they were Caucasians living there, and today, they're a mixture of mostly Eastern Asians with a small amount of Caucasian.

What is our current understanding of their origin and motivations?

I've only dabbled in the massive modern archives of old-time radio but horror and mystery stories are well-represented there, often some pretty effective and disturbing stuff. I know that there was censorship of horror comics through the 1950s-1970s, but a great deal of that seems to have been codified with the expectation that comics were especially attractive to (vulnerable/potentially delinquent) youth due to their format, on top of their distasteful content. Did horror radio escape the stigma on horror comics by being seen as geared toward adults, or was it the subject of its own moral criticism? Did horror radio have fan communities or enthusiastic fans in the same way horror comics/horror literature in print did?

I now this is a difficult subject since it is so secretive but if anyone can point me in a direction I would be greatly appreciative.