From what I've read/heard of ancient rome the city at it's height was enormous and incredibly densely populated, to the point of struggling to feed itself. Why? Why was so much of the population so centralised? It's not like there were enormous industrial era factories that needed labour, pulling people towards major cities.

The primary goal (that I know of) of the artillery bombardments was to destroy the barbed wire and soften up the enemy defences. This was done through extended shelling of the target area, but what sort of area would actually be under fire during these periods? Were they just aiming at the front lines of the enemy, or were they engaging the supply lines to the front as well? Also, was it the inaccuracy of the aiming during these barrages that caused the shell scarred landscape of no mans land, or was this caused inaccuracies in the gun itself? I'm assuming they weren't aiming at no mans land so why was it so saturated with shell holes?

Starter, Main, Dessert. Where does this originate from?

In Bridgerton series one, Daphne's desireability is explained readily by being appointed the diamond. The Duke's is obvious, given he is the senior most peer of the realm to appear in the show (excepting furriners) in addition to his clear wealth and power.

But why in series two is Viscount Anthony Bridgerton so desirable to all about the ton given how low a viscountcy ranks in the peerage? Were social strata less rigidly defined or policed once one had a peerage, or were more senior nobility so aloofly ahead in a further class of their own that they would normally be unattainable?

(or is it just a symptom of fiction?!)

With the mixed bag of results from the Russian Operations in Ukraine recently, especially what I've read about the issues at Hostomel Airport I've been wondering how the use and tactics of these forces have changed. It often seems, especially with what I know of the Axis and Allied airborne units in WWII that they are almost always relegated back to ground based roles--even if they do see success in their missions.

Are there any good auto-biographies, testimonies, or journals of military officers from the age of colonialism? I think it would be cool to read what French or British military officers thought about being deployed to Africa or Afghanistan back in the 1800s. What there daily life was like. The hardships, the adventure, the interactions with locals, the political and strategic situation from their perspective?

Is the olive tree the only tree you can get oil from? I know in the Bible it mentions the oil tree. It might be Isaiah but I'm not sure. Thanks

Side question: Is there any other band/artist that is comparable in influence?

Please help me better understand / correct my misunderstandings of, the details of societies which used shells as currency.

1. It seems to me that, even if the shell-traders are only interested in a certain distinctive kind of shell, it would be a relatively short time before the glut would make a single shell nearly valueless. But I haven't heard of shell trade being abandoned because of inflation.

2. I am under the impression that shell trade often made made its way fairly far inland. Would societies necessarily be considered more shell-poor the farther inland they are? If so, why would they value shells on par with the societies closer to the coast?

3. It seems to me that the societies which harvested shells would necessarily be powerful or influential because of this, but I haven't seen anything which directly relates shell harvesting to regional power. Why is this?

I mean, I understand how they work, but why? Why couldn't the milkman just leave it on the porch? And why was very specifically milk delivery so important that homes were built to accommodate that one delivery, and a whole occupation dedicated to delivering one specific item? Why didn't people get their milk at the store like everything else? Why weren't there breadmen and eggmen and flourmen?

assuming native goats there do indeed produce cashmere? not sure.

Great Britain and France declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.

Why did they not do the same to the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union attacked Poland shortly after?

I am writing a fantasy novel set in an (as indicated in the title) Pre-classical age, as opposed to the standard pseudo-medieval, with the plot centred around two royal twins, each being groomed for a different role. The Elder to be the heir apparent, and the younger a kind of spymaster.

I would like to know if the plot is compatible with the setting I have chosen, but I'm mostly concerned about how different the ruling of kingdoms was in the 'metal ages' than whatever assumptions someone like me, who has read mostly fantasy, would have.

What is the Oil Tree that is mentioned in the Bible? Was there something else besides Olive that oil was made from?

I am wondering if my perception of the life in the middle ages is skewed by all the historical fiction and podcasts I consumed or if there really never was a chance to life a peaceful life for the average peasant or merchant.

For example I am currently listening to the podcast "History of Byzantium" and in the 7th and 8th century there were apparently yearly raids on Anatolia by the arabs. Or 9th Century Holy Roman Empire with raids from the hungarians and in other places you got vikings raids and general war between rulers.

So I do wonder, was life just incredibly insecure and did every farmer eventually just experience violence, be at risk to be killed or be enslaved, or could you expect to life a whole life without ever experiencing such traumatic things.