I was reading about this on Wikipedia. Soviet physicist Nikolai Fedyakin believed he'd discovered a new state of water that was syrupy and remained liquid at both lower and higher temperatures, and the American military was very concerned with their ability to produce as much of the substance as the Soviets were (though it was later discovered that Fedyakin's methods were flawed, and what he'd taken to be a new state of water was simply ordinary water with pollutants in it).

But why was America so worried about this? Was it simply run-of-the mill Cold War paranoia about the Russians having something we didn't, or were there specific potential military applications of the supposed substance which they believed would grant whichever nation possessed the most of it a specific advantage?

Rock music, especially punk, has strong political and social connotations that were controversial even in the west and yet I've heard of many instances of rock in communist countries in eastern Europe. Elton John famously toured the Soviet Union in 1979. Frank Zappa was apparently very popular in Czechoslovakia and was even designated a cultural ambassador. Moreover I've listened to many punk bands from Poland (Siekiera, Klaus Mittfoch, Brygada Kryzys) who were active and released albums in the 80's while Poland was still communist.

How was rock recorded, performed, or distributed behind the Iron Curtain? Was it censored or lead to political repercussions? How accepting were various communist countries to western style rock music?

And if not, how are they classified ethnically and linguistically? It seems that there has been debate in the past, and I am curious what the modern view of the Picts place in history is.

I just learned recently that the people of the Byzantine Empire while still a part of the Roman Empire, did not actually call themselves as Byzantines but rather as Romans (it turns out that historians called it the Byzantine Empire to help people make distinctions on which part of the Roman Empire they were talking about)

So technically, the Byzantine Empire continued to the Roman Empires legacy even though the Byzantine Empire is often very distinct than the Western Roman Empire like the choice of clothing, the religion and so on.

We are often more exposed to the Western Roman Empire because of their economic, political, social and military structures that had left an impact on their entire world and future generations and the legacies behind such structures.

(some of those structures are still used, are being implemented and still being studied and researched today and more discoveries are still being found)

lHowever, you often find little focus on the Byzantine Empire despite that the Byzantine Empire continued to prosper in many ways for almost 1000 years after the Western Roman Empire fell.

Did the Byzantine Empire leave anything remarkable like the Western Roman Empire did when the lost technologies and arts of Rome were rediscovered and studied during the Renaissance?

Or is this just an over-saturation or over-appreciation by historians or Hollywood or the general public because we are more familiar with the Western Roman Empire (similar to how we are more familiar with the Greeks than other ancient civilisations like the Persians) or is this just an appreciation of the Roman "fluff" so to speak *(similar to how we often have an appreciation for ancient mythologies like that of the Greeks, or the Norse gods or ancient Egypt)?

I was curious as to why some Romans only had two names. I found out that during the empire the praenomen's function was gradually eroded and no longer recorded, but I could not find anything on the Republic times.

Why did some people, like Marcus Antonius, Gaius Marius, Gnaeus Pompeius, only have 2 names, while people, like Caesar, had 3 in same time period? Did they only have praenomen and nomen or no praenomen with a nomen and cognomen?

thanks,

There is no doubt that he was a great general but I saw somewhere that Romans often over exaggerate the numbers they where up against. Did Julius Caesar do this as well to make himself look really good for the senate and the public. Is there any other none Roman accounts of him.

My personal favourite battle is the The Siege of Alesia.

I’d also like to know why if we have insights on that.

Considering it is run by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who no disrespect, are not international affairs scholars and this not really qualified to make such judgements. It seems to be given legitimacy and is constantly written about when updated (as happened today), though there is no apparent basis for how they reach these numbers, no defined system aside from their own beliefs. While I could be totally incorrect here, it seems like it's just an opinion piece that has been given undue weight for whatever reason.

Would they be able to make it to land or would they be essentially dead at that point?

At what point did people stop wanting to be independent and start imitating the Romans? Was it Charlemagne who essentially started the practice?

[deleted]

So I'm trying to design an RPG, and I find myself stumped by the above question. When concerning archers, it was relatively easy to find that a quiver could contain a sheaf of arrows (24), but I find this question for riflemen more difficult.

The firearm technology is still at a muzzleloading/flintlock stage, where only the most advanced nations (more like nation, singular) have moved on to using metal cartridges.

So back to the question: American Revolutionary War era; how much ammo did the average soldier carry for his musket?

We talked about Machiavelli in history class today, and the teacher said that she personally believes he wrote The Prince as satire, which initially made sense to me because I thought most of his ideas were absurd, but at the same time she has told me stuff that was straight up not true so I wanted to ask Reddit to confirm.

African-Americans in the US that were enslaved and forcibly segregated were not targeted for genocide as systemically as Jewish people in Germany. I can understand how dehumanization could have started in 1100 AD, but by 1917, how could anyone still have so much hatred against people that look like them?

Huge fan of studying comparative religion and lately, I'm interested in learning more about ancient Egypt: their beliefs, their practices, and hopefully even some lesser-known myths I haven't heard.

Particularly interested in Anubis, but it seems when I try to find sources for Egyptian religion, I'm more likely to find New Age stuff about shamanism and the power of the spirits than anything even remotely related to actual Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs.

while calling Persians leader after Khosrow never really became a trend, even in Persia Itself, Emporaros calling themselves a variation of the Title Caesar become popular. albeit way, Way later in history. why Did the Arabs do it... and that early!

Is it for example that Arabic simply did not have a word for Shah or Emperor or maybe the Quran came up with/popularized those title?

also, Arabs were loyal Allies to Persia and a Major trade partner to the Romans, so it's like they were foreigners who had no Idea what they were called!?