I'd figure that a pack of trained dogs could do decent damage against, say, a roman formation or a group of medieval English archers, yet I've never heard of such a thing. Why wasn't it common for soldiers to have dogs with them, or even specialized units using them?

Apologies if this has been asked before, a reddit search turned up nothing.

Sticky bombs - socks with explosives covered in something sticky - were shown in Saving Private Ryan and in the game Company of Heroes. But I've never heard of this in any history book, nor read it in any field manual. And according to Tom Hanks, its in the manual.

So was this a real thing, or Hollywood at it's best?

I was reading about the Italian invasion of France earlier, and apparently the Italians gave a solid 7 hours of warning before the war took effect, and I've heard about it happening before, but not recently.

Why did nations do this? Why not just preemptively strike?

I am specifically wondering about North Korea, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia.

My confusion comes from the, presumably mistaken, idea that the end goal for the Soviets was to create a single communist government as they spread their revolution.

Most accounts I've found of early modern warfare seem to show a fairly large number of weapons towards the beginning of that period, from massive two-handed swords to halberds, to other sorts of weapons, whereas it seems like pikes came to displace all these weapons. Why was this?

Also, long spears have existed since at least ancient Macedon, probably much longer, why did blocks of pikeman only start dominating the battlefield again in the early modern period? Why not during the middle ages?

I've read that Golda Meir threatened to use nuclear weapons against Damascus if the Syrians didn't withdraw their forces before entering "Israel proper" (for lack of a better term). Is this true? What sort of documentation do we have for this?

So I'm trying to understand the revisionist (in the non-perjorative sense) narrative of Germany WWI inflation and reparations. If I understand correctly, the reparations were not at all crippling and the cause of hyperinflation, but Germany just refused to pay. There are two things about this I am tryign to understand:

1. Posts say that Germany deliberately hyperinflated their currency in order to renege on reparations. Why did they do this? Does this mean hyperinflation wasn't a result of stumbling into a cycle via bad management, but a deliberate policy choice? Also, if germany could pay the reparations, why did they inflict hyperinflation just to get out of them?

2. Was not getting reparations payments substantially harmful to French and UK recovery from WWI? That idea seems to run counter to the idea that the reparations weren't as large as headline numbers and were relatively within german power to pay off.

The question came to me earlier as I was rereading the Book of Mormon. Since archaeological research has proven that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist I was curious as to what people existed in America at the time?

Who were they? What was their culture? What was rheir religion. Where did they exist and are they the same peoples who exist today?

Additional Info: The Book of Mormon takes place from 597BC to 400AD. The narrative is, based on the testimony of its author, primarily set in North America - with him pointing out locations in Palmyra, New York, Missouri and other locations nearby - although the book does describe the people spreading out to the entire tontinent.

I am not a believer in the literal history of the Book of Mormon but am curious as to what groups lived during this time there.

In my history class today we were discussing life in Rome during the Roman Empire. We talked about Insulae and how people used chamber pots in their rooms. My professor said that urine was routinely collected and used to clean with since it contained ammonia. So my question is, how did the Romans process the urine to use it for cleaning purposes?

I've been thinking about it a lot, and I've heard that the founding fathers didn't actually agree on a lot and would actual argue a lot. This makes me wonder if there might've been a version of the constitution which was considered that might have drastically changed history had it passed instead of the one we know today. And if such a version was ever considered, is there any evidence or record of it today?

In the wild, a lot of these stereotypes regarding animal diets are not true and in some cases (like cats drinking milk) could lead to serious digestive issues. Just where and how did these notions come about and how did they become so popular and prevalent?

Can you provide any additional examples of outlandish property grabs in this vein?

In the aftermath of a battle there would have been a lot of armour and weaponry left lying around, either on the dead or left by fleeing soldiers. What happened to this? Was it left where it lay, did the victorious side collect it all, did looters grab it? What was stopping an entrepreneur from hanging around battle sites and collecting all the fallen stuff and re selling it?

To my understanding, China since ancient times had been pretty lenient about homosexuals and would be so until western influence on the late Qing and the ROC. So how did the Christian "Heavenly Kingdom of Peace" deal with it in their occupied zones of control?