I understand that the inner Arabian dessert would’ve been inhospitable for an ancient army, but the coasts don’t seem too difficult.

I thought I remembered seeing or reading about this woman that was able to guess what the goal of The Manhattan Project was before it was completed. She guessed it and confirmed her guess after it bombings had occured.

I'm making a home brew pen and paper rpg based in a fantasy version of the late Persian Empire, and I'm trying to find information to help me design locations. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

This is something I’ve always wondered! Any in depth answers would be dope!

So I am doing a convoluted project for Latin (don't question it) where I am having to discuss several locations under the Roman Empire. One of my choices was the pyramids since Rome controlled Egypt for a good amount of time. When I search up "Pyramids under Rome" and similar key-words I keep coming up with the pyramid of Cestius so my question is this. What kind of condition were the pyramids (and I guess the Sphinx as well) in during the Roman Empire?

The region of present day Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia etc., I get the environment isn't great for Mongol tactics but surely they'd be easier targets than the ones in Europe?

So this touches on the question of "why did the Americans get devastated by European diseases and not vice versa?"

The most common answer I've heard is that the Eurpeans were in close contact with large animals but the Americans weren't. How true is this? Weren't the Inca in close contact with llamas?

They were outnumbered, but still win within 6 Days. Had few Casualties while their Enemy had 10 times more Casualties. How did they done it?

I've been reading up about the cataphracts since I find byzantine military history enthralling, and I read that they only used the selectively bred "Nisean" horse for the cataphract units. Of course, this use predates the Byzantines, with the Parthians, Archimaemenid Persians and Seleucids also having used this breed to create their Cataphract units. The last of the Niseans were made extinct by the sacking of Constantinople in the fourth crusade.

It was said to have

"not the slender Arabian head of the Luristan Culture but a more robust one that was characteristic of the great warhorse". Another is that the were "tall and swift, and color adorned his sides".

They had legendary status in antiquity - Wikipedia says

"During the reign of Darius, Nisean horses were bred from Armenia to Sogdiana. The Nisean horse was so sought after, that the Greeks (mainly, the Spartans) imported Nisean horses and bred them to their native stock, and many nomadic tribes, (such as the Scythians) in and around the Persian Empire also imported, captured, or stole Nisean horses."

A.T. Olmstead, in his History of the Persian Empire says that pure white Niseans were the horses of kings and, in myth, gods. Cyrus the Great was so distraught when one of his stallions was drowned while crossing a river, he had the river where the horse was drowned drained. He did not believe that anything that could kill a horse so beautiful.

That being said, I can't find any uses of Cataphracts being used in the Byzantine empire, or in any other context past around 1100. Did the Nisean horse lose its exclusivity and value with the advent of the selectively bred western heavy cavalry? From the limited reading I've done, early knights of Feudal Europe also used selectively bred horses in combat that were stockier, slightly slower but far hardier than the average horse - these characteristics are akin to the Nisean. Would the Nisean still maintain its superiority in, say, 1200?

Or does its legendary status only hold due to the fact that hellenic and eastern horses were traditionally smaller and slighter, so the Nisean stood out completely? Would it still be a behemoth in comparison to the Western European warhorses of the 13th century?

In 1997, a brief but bloody period of civil unrest and widespread disorder broke out in Albania due to dissatisfaction with the government; based on what I've read, this was mostly caused by many people losing their savings through Ponzi schemes. I've also read that after the government lost control of many southern regions, they opened weapons depots for citizens to loot in order to protect themselves. This all seems very strange. What happened during that time, and why?

I refer to its portrayal of Christianity vs Buddhism and martyrdom. I've always had this idea that Buddhism spread without violence, but the movie made me question that idea. I was wondering what was your input on the history portrayed by the movie...

[deleted]

For example, in movies and shows like saving private Ryan and band of brothers, sodlers are quite often shown taking a bullet to the helmet and the bullet going through with little to no trouble. It almost seems like helmets were basically pointless when it came to a direct hit. Was that accurate from back then? Whether it be due to technological/design limitations or did we just not have a good enough understanding of ballistics to make a helmet that would stop most infantry rounds? Were they meant to just protect from shrapnel or other chunks of debris but not whole bullets? Are these movies and TV shows just inaccurate? (I would understand your every day war movie, but SPR and BoB are known for they're fairly impressive historical accuracy)

I apologize if this has been asked before. I'm on mobile and can't really search effectively. Feel free to remove if need be.

A tenant of most modern religions that I'm familiar with is that the belief in the religion informs your personal morals, and as a result you life philosophy and actions. Certainly early Christian and pre-christian Jewish writings seem to imply that has always been the norm for that religious tradition.

When I read Greek and early Roman literature pre-constatine, I get the feeling that their religion permitted you to have any type of life philosophy and morals and that would make you a good, or a bad person, but was not informed by the way the actions are perceived by the gods.

I can't seem to find any literature that invokes the gods as a form of moral control - only arguments about the general goodness or rightness of a persons particular moral philosophy.

Was Queen Elizabeth I always referred to as "the first", or only up until Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, took the throne?

[deleted]