It is well known that the area between the trenches was nearly impossible to cross. That being the case, how would one side start to dig a trench while so close to the enemy?

WW2 designers weren't stupid (except maybe the German ones). Why would they design vehicles that were very exposed to artillery, grenades, and aircraft?

[deleted]

What would their daily lives look like? Did they have regular jobs and fight in the arena for money and fame? Additionally If anyone has seen the show Spartacus on Starz, does it accurately depict what the life of a gladiator would be? Thank you!

From what I understand, when the Romans added new lands to their empire, the locals living in the conquered territories were forced to add the Roman gods to their religious pantheons. Without a religious text like the Bible detailing the rich religious mythology of their culture, how did the Romans spread their religious beliefs and customs to the communities they conquered?

The Portuguese "Empire", especially in Africa and the Far East, looks to me a lot like a highly decentralised body without any serious control over other states or countries. It appears perhaps a diaspora of Portuguese people looking to make their own fortune, a gold rush of sorts, in which most of those who travelled eastwards were hardly under the control of metropolitan Portugal at all.

Thinks I'm thinking of include:

• A highly decentralised bureaucracy to a point where fortress captains etc. are effectively independent from the Portuguese Crown

• Huge numbers of unofficial Portuguese settlements and Portuguese people working against the interests of the Crown

• Major privatisation, e.g. of "royal" monopolies, fortresses, trading ships

I don't see how this could be at all comparable to, say, the British Empire. So I was wondering, have any serious historians questioned whether we can truly call the Portuguese Empire a real "Empire"?

Thank you for your time!

[edit] 4 years — for some reason I got confused and thought that WW1 ended in 1919 or 1920.

Mesopotamia is often credited with many recorded "world's firsts" such as the wheel, units of measurements, and even abacus-like contraptions. I'm curious as to why this was relatively short-lived, obviously all civilizations come and go, but what happened to the mesopatamians?

I've been learning a little bit about Napoleon tonight, and he is completely despicable. He was a compulsive liar, a bully, petty, and above all killed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Admittedly, I think that's including battles, but even then, some of the stories of how he treated the locals in Egypt and the Near East are disgusting and horrifying. Why isn't this talked about more?

Hello!! I was wondering if anyone can help explain to me what the Somerset Light Infantry did in World War II and how long they saw combat in the war?

I'm asking because I've never heard of these guys and I'm having trouble searching for good clear information about them. Thank you!!

If Japan had invaded at the same time as Germany then Soviet would have gotten a war on two fronts.

[deleted]

Could someone recommend a good book on the Roman Legionnaires?

Do historians consider the Ottomans to be a “European” dynasty or Asiatic one. Historically, their base was Northern Anatolia and Southern Balkans and had a very Slavic “government” with Southern Slavs forming a key segment of Ottoman governance.

If we talk about Rome and the Roman Republic/Empire, most of us mention about the Roman Army and how great it was.

I am finding it hard to understand why apart from the architecture, the legal and political structures that the Roman Empire left post-mostum to the rest of the world (mostly in Western culture), people still mention the Roman Army despite military strategy has advanced so much since the ancient times.

Some say that some of the strategic advancement in the Roman Army are still being studied and used today.

Some say that it is one of the best armies ever (which I find to pick or pinpoint becuase there were so many armies with their own strategies that it is hard to pick which is the best one).

Some say the Roman Army's emphasis on strategy was what kept the Roman Empire afloat from outside forces (what they often called them as 'barbarians' because during that time, Rome was basically the most civilised of all civilisations)

I am finding it hard to grasp why the Roman Army is still mentioned today even though military strategy and the military occupation has advanced a lot since the ancient times

Rome's culture was partially influenced by Greece, and one of which was their use of their own Roman Pantheon were the Roman gods were almost copies of the Greek gods but with different names.

But apart from the names, were there other differences that made them different from the Roman gods?

For example, I heard that Jupiter was different than Zeus was described as a sex addict or a satyromaniac with lots of anger issues and punished anyone who did not follow his rule, while Jupiter was a more noble ruler of the gods.

I was reading Keegan' s history of WW1, and he argues that generals were not quite as privileged or elitist as other histories argue as there were many generals who became casualties in the Great War. At the same time, he acknowledges that generals were not at the front lines as their headquarters were positioned at telephone wire connections, far from the front. So how did these generals die if they were so far from the front? Were there too many front line inspections?

First of all let me say that if this is the wrong sub please point me in the right direction (I will be posting in r/history also).

For my history coursework at college I need to write a discussion of a pre-decided historical work which in my case is A.J.P Taylor's "The Struggle for mastery in Europe 1848-1914".
I've managed to find a few criticisms of the work but a majority of the pages I've seen have been poorly referenced or reference texts which seem to have disappeared completely.

Any suggestions welcome, Thanks in advance.

I am reading a letter from Marie Antionette right now, written in 1773, in which it seems like the French people loved her. Is this true? She became the queen in 1774 but I can't imagine her being very liked before. All information/sources that can help are greatly appreciated!