[deleted]

I saw a tv show which interviewed a professor of Jewish History who talked about his new book about the Bar Kohva Revolt. The professor claimed that the Jewish people have revolted at least 10 times against the Roman Empire and that no other nation under the Roman Empire had managed to revolt more then two times. How true is his claim that no other nations managed to rose against the Roman Empire more then on or two times?

I'm reading "The Fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy and he is describing ancient source texts he has used. They are almost universally enormous, or at least sound like they are to my modern ears.

Polybius' "History" - 40 books

Livy "History of Rome" - 142 books

Diodorus Siculus "Library of History" - At least 40 books

etc.

Now a 142 book history sounds almost comically large and impossible to read let alone write. Was it really a vast work or did ancient book making simply require that much more space? If they are actually much longer than modern works, was there a reason such as writing style or an element of prestige in length?

A friend is writing a short story and needs some information. Her request copy/pasted from a text:

Help! I'm writing a murder mystery short story that takes place in and around 1789, and I'm including letters from an investigator to his superior about the case. Anybody who knows anything about that time period, what was the police/investigation structure, what would his title be, and what position would his superior hold??

Any other information is also welcomed. Thank you!

Shakespeare set his stories in such locales as Italy and Denmark. Was there a reason that he chose to set them there? For example, was he really writing about a situation in England but for which he couldn't write freely?

From my understanding Hitler was charged with treason but was released after nine months. Why such a short sentence?

I was taught that the Thin Red Line was an important part of the transition from smooth-bore muskets to rifles, as rifles were far more accurate than muskets, could shoot greater distances, and were more lethal. and allowed Campbell's men to stop the cavalry charge sooner. I'm told this paved the way for making the square formation obsolete, and cavalry charges less common. Campbell knew the effectiveness of the rifle and so chose to form up in a line.

How accurate is this? Were the British armed with rifles or muskets, and did this affect Campbell's decision at all?

Do we have any way of knowing what the population of Italy looked like culturally/ethnically in the time of the Lombard Kingdom (568 - 774)?

I've read that the peninsula was massively depopulated after the Gothic wars, and that there weren't enough soldiers of the Empire to hold the land against the invading Lombards, but do we know anything about how many Gothic people were left, how many Romans (or whatever you'd classify them as) were left, and how many Lombards (and/or their Germanic allies) migrated into Italy?

I've googled, but haven't really been able to find anything. I'm not even sure I know how to properly search for that sort of thing.

Specifically I'm interested in would the Emperor and his senior military leaders have knowledge of comfort women, medical experiments, massacres, etc?

And if so what opinion did he/they hold on it?

I mean I found Deutsche Kolonialzeitung (colonial journal of Germany) but I guess Austria-Hungary must have something too, but I can't find it on the internet.

After seeing a similar question regarding Baldr's death in Norse mythology, I thought this could be a good question for some experts on Mesopotamia.

I just read through a translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it fascinates me because the main character is often described as beautiful, strong, and so on, but isn't exactly a good person by modern standards if we just look at what he does in the story. Did the ancient Mesopotamians view it any differently?

I've always wondered this. If you are travelling overland from Europe to China in the medieval period, how did you pay for food etc? Could you carry enough money to sustain you over all this time?

Perhaps I just need help to understand, but from what I see that was textbook genocide, killing civilians even the babies and pregnant women etc. Shouldn't whoever ordered that attack be considered among the greatest villains of history, amount Stalin and Mao?

Sorry if this is a sensitive topic.

In my research I've had very conflicting sources, some saying that Ptolemy dynasty tried their hardest to hellenize Egypt, others saying that they simply kept themselves Greek and others further saying that the Ptolemy's did their best to become Egyptian to appease the populace.

Which of these statements are correct, or is it a mix of two?

Well, the only instance I know is of Pompeius Strabo (father of Gnaeus Pompeius, you know, the Magnus, the Great) having a disease broke up in his camp when he besieged Cinna and others. This must mean that other earlier armies were always good at avoiding it. The Persian, Macedonian, Theban, Spartan, Athenian, none to my memory. So protocols were that wastes and such were thrown far from the camp? Just some help please!

I am in no way trying to justify the Holocaust-just want to make that clear. I visited the US Holocaust museum today (it was outstanding) and I wondered: Hitler blamed the Jews for all the things wrong with Germany post-WW1 and of course said that by purifying the German state Germany could prosper. So I wondered, did the economy (or anything else) benefit at all from his policies and Final Solution?