I've recently found a copy of SPQR in my university's library and become fascinated with it. In addition to being a good read, Beard seems to engage with primary sources well and presents multiple viewpoints of important events. That being said I'm interested in hearing what mainstream historians think of the work as it is clearly designed for the general public and so may miss some of the nuance that academic works have.

Specifically, for its use in bread. It seems so strange that someone would ever think "I am going to take all this yeast and throw it in my bread before I bake it."

Did they have analogous ideas for spring, summer, fall, and winter?

My grandmother died in 1910 of bowel paralysis at the age of 56. I googled but didn't find an exact answer. I don't have her death cert. Any thoughts as to what we would call that disease today?

This might seem like a dumb question, I'm sure that every country has had some history of enslaving others/being enslaved. But too often I hear this phrase. I think the phrasing of "built on the backs of", implies that without slavery America would have failed; that all of America's success is attributed to the exploitation of slaves. Are there other countries with similar histories?

I have heard arguments against this stating that the North didn't have slavery and that slaves were actually bad economics.

This phrase seems to have deep roots in Christianity. It feels as a modern to emphasize the level of sacrifice - only son vs one of many. Is there more historical weight or meaning behind this phrase in 1st century Judea (or more likely some later point when it entered use in the church?) Is the emphasis on the loss of the only child or the fact that Jesus IS the only child?

I only saw Vietnam in the recommended readings list, and I've already read a few things on both Viêt Nam and the Khmer empire, but it's hard to put them in perspective.

Is there a book that covers the south East Asian history as a whole that anybody can recommend?

I would guess you could fit more stuff onto a multi engined fighter, Like guns, fuel, bombs or radar. Or is there some sort of performance advantage?

The reason I ask is because of the widespread use of the gladius during this time by the infantry, which as we know the short length had many advantages for. But surely a short sword isn't great for mounted combat, so I would think the spatha would be ideal.

But I can only find claims that the spatha found widespread use later on as foreign cavalry units that already used longswords continued to do as after becoming auxilii and introduced it, so to speak. My second guess would be spears but it seems the Romans weren't particularly interested in them except as projectiles such as the pila.

Thank you in advance to anyone taking the time to indulge me :)

In a thread on here today someone asked why the USA didn’t use nukes against the Soviet Union to retake Eastern Europe, and it got me thinking, aside from all the reasons why this wouldn’t happen - Was it even possible to use nuclear force against Moscow at that time?

Did Allied war planes even have the ability to reach the Kremlin at the end of the war in terms of the distance that would need to be covered by those planes?

And, even if they did have the mechanical ability, would they be able to get all that way without being intercepted by Soviet defences?

Or would rockets have made it possible?

My wife is Japanese and during a conversation with her she said it was common knowledge in Japan that the US forces used poison gass to help take Iwo Jima. Prior to this I haven't heard any rumor of this. Given the nature of the battle it seems plausable, but I haven't seen any reference to it in english accounts of the battle. Any truth to this?

Further context: 1790, Warrenton, VA.
I am finding a will stating "My desire is that my Negro Will and Negro Sarah shall not be parted if it can Possible be hoped." This implies that the two are pseudo-married, and that the owner was interested enough in their lives to keep them together. A further assumption is that he had a near amicable relationship (for a master/slave) with them.

Is this unusual or common for the yeoman farmers with smaller slave groups and more personal daily co-working relationship?

I would like to know if this also changed by ages, and what difference of coercion were between household slaves and field slaves, between male and female slaves, adult and child slaves, and whatever other difference.

And specifically about Sparta, were helots allowed to be raped or, due to their "belonging" to the community as a whole, they were only meant to do their already backbreaking work and just that, not for other purpose? And what about female household helots? Were they perfectly allowed to be raped?

And lastly, I read something that the master/despotes could not have intercourse with female slaves without the mistress/despoina wanting it? How much true is this? The examples seem to allow the point, but only limited, Klytaimnestra killing not only Agamemnon but also innocent Kassandra, Laertes afraid of laying with Eurykleia due to his wife Antykleia, etc.

[deleted]

So this question arose to me when I realized in total war, a game series I'm sure some of you guys have heard of, you can't use elephants like they were historically used, shock troops straight down the middle to wreak havoc on the enemy front line before sending your own front line in.

In total war you can (and are pretty much forced) to use elephants as a heavy shock flanking force, but I realized some of the weaknesses of real elephants would have been covered by flanking too. If you were able to hold elephants in reserve until the the enemy skirmish was occupied or used up (thinking Roman Pilum) your elephants were safer, and if your elephants are in the back of enemy armies then they have far less chance of crushing your own men, and lastly, in engaged battle the enemy army can't open up columns of free space to let them pass and be engaged in active melee at the same time.

Now I know that the back line is a bit much, troops weren't all committed into a giant melee generally. But flanks definitely seem viable in my mind. And the advantages I brought up still seem to be there to a lesser extent.

So I know I must have a fundamental misconception of battles in antiquity because I'm sure some Howdah or General would have thought of this and listed off reasons as to why it's terrible. I just want to know why I've never heard of it, from the battles of Panipat to Zama to the Hydaspes I can only recall this straightforward shock charge or at least front line use of elephants into opposing frontline infantry, even pikes and guns, rather than being used on flanks. So obviously I'm missing something critical.