There seem to be quite a lot of battles like the battle of Carrhae or Cannae, where tens of thousands of roman soldiers were killed with comparetively minimal losses on the opposing sides. How was it that the Empire remained so powerful despite of this?

As follow-up question, is "trendsetting" something of a modern phenomenon? How was information about styles transmitted? Through word of mouth from those present at court etc?

Edit: I'm thinking specifically of later in the early modern period in Europe, so roughly early 1700s to early 1800s.

I just had this thought and it got me curious...

I'd love a book which gives a general overview of some of the important events, locations, people involved etc. What cities like Port Royal, Nassau etc. were like

It isn't only pirates I'm interested in - I'm interested in the history of it, how it related to Empire and civilization, and lots more besides. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Yes, I just started watching Babylon Berlin on Netflix, but I've seen portrayals of prostitution and perversity in other media when portraying the Weimer Republic setting. Was it worse in Germany than typical vice issues in other parts of the world?

After doing some more research on why Hitler attacked the USSR it seems clear it was for their oil reserves to be able to sustain and expand their motorized force. This usually is framed as his greatest “blunder” as well as his descision not to attack Moscow, instead going for Stalingrad and the caucasus. I have heard that the Germans estimated they would only have 2 months to take the oil fields before their panzers ran out. It also seems like the Germans would've had to shrink their motorized force to be able to supply occupied France with energy unless they found a source besides their coal to fuel synthesis. So it looks like a smart move to try and secure oil from the USSR as the Germans outnumbered the Soviet forces on the Eastern front and the soviets only had sizeable numbers of outdated light tanks (it was some crazy number like 22,000?) while their heavy and medium tanks in 1941 only numbered around 1000. The soviet army was very fresh as Stalin had been rapidly expanding the army, which would make it seem like a quick victory in 2 months would be possible.

So it looks like this was a smart strategic descision from Hitler, why is it considered a blunder?

I was wondering if the information I’d gathered was accurate, thanks for your time.

We always hear how Allied deception tricked the Germans into thinking the invasion of Europe would occur at Pas de Calais, but what kind of defensive preparations did the Germans make in this area? Was this area heavily fortified/reinforced compared to the Normandy region? Thanks!

When I think about conscription, I think of it being used where the very survival of the country was at risk, so I was wondering why the US used it in Vietnam?

The empire seemed to hold a fairly big portion of Europe, and held quite a bit of power. Were there any notable effects of its break up?

Why is this?

Hello Everybody!

I am a student at Westlake High School and I am currently creating a Vietnam Memorial Presentation for Staff Sergeant Fred Andrew Lind of Recon Plt, HHC, 1st BN, 16th infantry, 1st Infantry Division. After studying his death report I found out he was killed in the Binh long Province of Vietnam during the time of Operation El Paso 2. If anybody can help shed some light of what the Operation was about, what was the goal or anything, that would help tremendously to creating his Video Memorial!

Thank You so much in advance to any responses!

The consensus has been presented as MacArthur not being responsive to civilian control of his command. Is this true, or were there other reasons?

The goal of razzle was not to conceal but instead to make it difficult to estimate a target's range, speed, and heading. How effective was it at this?

This question arose to me when the Polish government passed the controversial law outlawing any criticism of Poles being responsible for the Holocaust in any way. I am aware that there were a number of Poles doing the dirty job for the Germans, hence to be more specific, I want to ask how to evaluate the extent to which they were truly complicit?

What would "plan B" have been? How much time would have been needed to replenish the lost troops, equipment, etc.? What would this have meant in the context of the whole war?

I'm not as steeped in reggae as I should be, but most of the Marley I've heard is about love, brotherhood, and religious and political liberation. I'd go so far as to say that most of the reggae I hear in general is about those topics rather than smoking weed, and that when I hear a reggae song about smoking weed, it's always someone else anyway. I know the man did smoke a lot of weed, but it feels unfair to paint him into that corner, as if the people doing so aren't listening to his music. Is this just the same mechanism by which all politically charged art is watered down for the masses when it becomes too big to ignore, or is there something more to it?

note: I'm referring specifically to Marley's reputation in America, I understand that he's seen differently in post-colonial states, probably rightfully so.

I have no particular time period in mind but if I had to choose one then how about Victorian England.

The scandal was of course reported on extensively, so everyone knew about it, but did it have much impact on the average Joe on both on a national and international scale?

As a history major, I was taught to place high importance on primary sources and firsthand accounts. However, I have recently begun to wonder if trusting personal letters or family stories is the equivalent of someone 50 years in the future blindly accepting the accuracy of Facebook posts, Tweets, etc. Primary sources written by invaders/colonizers are also problematic, for obvious reasons, especially in cases where only their side is well documented. In light of these concerns, how trustworthy are primary sources?

EDIT:

from the same person I'm quoiting in the OP...

The institution you are referring to was still closer to indentured servitude, and not chattel slavery as was practiced in the American South. It was simply a form of employment, and Paul also says "masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."