[deleted]

I know that it was common for inscriptions, religious symbols or other decorations to be added to armor, but was an entire set ever completely painted over?

I would love to read up on the Incan empire or just a good (preferably with less bias) history of Peru, would love to learn more. I've got some great books from this subreddit. I've been looking for books and trying to see if there's more "legitimacy" or even just better writing.

I was watching some old ww2 footage, and I noticed that a lot of soldiers that were launching big cannons, were not wearing any pants or shirt. Why?

Most of the information I find when I use Google is about the Christmas Truce of WWI or how the holiday was celebrated within the UK. I could use some help on how the war was celebrated aboard ship and in the European and Pacific theatres by the British Expeditionary Force for an article I'm writing.

Before the pax Romona, the Roman Republic had been at war for nearly 200 years, allowing for continuous lines of officers and soldiers to gain experience and knowledge and pass it on to their replacements.

But the Pax Romana, particularly the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, was notable for its absence of conflict. During the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and up through the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, roughly 44 years passed with virtually no major conflicts.

How, then did officer tactical knowledge and skill not degrade? Today we have West Point, but the Romans didn't have that sort of military academy. Their officers gained skill in the field, and for 44 years the legions were usually just building roads and fortifications. Sure, they probably read a few tactical manuals, but was that enough?

But it seems like the Romans didn't lose a step. When the Persians invaded at the beginning of Marcus Aurelius's reign, his generals threw them back without much trouble.

How could this be?

This is based on the following /r/Showerthoughts post:

"No sex before marriage" was thought of when people would marry as young as 13

It made me wonder how widespread this concept was, how old it is and if there is even a specific time when it was "invented".

I'm from Fort Wayne, IN and I remember that from a very early age, I've always heard this local legend that Hitler had a list of U.S. cities he wanted to bomb and Fort Wayne was in the top 10. How well does this hold up? Did he actually have a list? If Fort Wayne was on it, why would Fort Wayne be on it?

I've been reading "Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom," the story of a man who failed the Chinese SAT's and decided to be a Christian, Chinese version of L. Ron Hubbard mixed with ISIS. They keep bringing up these exams and I can't stop wondering what was on these exams and what it was like to take them. Do we have copies? How hard was it really?

They seem interesting but I cant seem to find alot about them.

Both resulted in somewhat republican state, both killed their kings, both ultimately failed but changed their countries.

Yet if you look at various timelines or important dates lists French Revolution is always there and English one is rarely ever mentioned. Why?

I was in Ypres this week and you have monument for the missing soldiers.

We as a people have been drinking for as long as before the first blackout, but I was wondering if before modern times whenever there was stronger liquor around if drinkers would use a "chaser" to lessen the harsh taste of the alcohol. A friend of mine believes this isn't the case, but I think he's wrong. So, what does history say?

I read that Teutonic Knights served in Habsburg armies specifically in leadership positions during the 18th century as the order was very quickly declining. I was wondering if they had any part in early modern warfare including the French revolutionary wars.

Was there any precedent, tradition or law that dictated how they would be treated, titles they would receive etc?

Sometime in recent history (I'm thinking somewhere between the 1700s-1900s) new innovations in technology came to be viewed not as one-off accidents, but as a trend that defines human civilization.

Certainly, the Romans didn't think the invention of the ballista might entail centuries of technological progress in warfare. But did people in 1700's England already view the invention of James Watt's steam engine as an omen for more industrial innovation to come? Of course, these days, with every little inch of technological progress comes never-ending speculation on what the next five years might look like in the world of technology.

I'm sure we can't pin down a specific date for this, but I'd love to hear some detailed answers about what general time range (and even what technological innovations) might have sparked this change in perception.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond! :)

I heard story about Stalin executed people just because they called him "a pig".

It seems that anywhere else in the world, people with their own language would form their own ethnic group. But people in Southern China are all Han like Northern China, regardless of the many different languages. Why didn't a split develop?

I'm reading through Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War", and I wanted to check as to his reputation amongst the historical community. Throughout my reading, I haven't read anything obviously false or incredibly biases, he does seem to have a lesser opinion of American contributions in North Africa, but I don't know enough about the topic to say if that is reasonable. Anyone versed on WW2, what's your opinion on Beevor and his work?