Between the era of fixed capitals beginning, and the mid/late 19th century where the whole front could be manned, why didn't the main army of one country just bypass all forts and go straight to the foe's capital? Though it wouldn't be a silver bullet, I would have thought taking the capital would demoralise the enemy government, sow chaos in their administration, and possibly allow the capture of many key commanders. Did forts have sufficient ability to scorch-earth armies that they couldn't maintain such a march? Were capitals easily moved and hence taking the normal one would be no more significant than any other city?

For instance, I was reading Four Princes and it talks about Suleiman's advance towards Vienna, and he spent 25 days besieging Guns and it's 800 man garrison while he had 100,000 men. Why bother? Couldn't he just leave ~4000 men there to blockade them while his massive army heads for the real target?

Considering the stalemate/static nature of trench warfare wouldn't some kind of body armor have made sense? As I understand it the armor of tanks played an important role in breaking the lines- was the idea of armoring troops just too out of date?

I don't understand the difference between division, brigades and regiments etc in the US Army. Firstly, what's the difference and how does this compare to other major powers of the time? How many men were in each division etc. Sorry if this is a bit too much. Any effort to help me will be much appreciated :)

For example: Why Destroyer? Shouldn't a Battleship be a "Destroyer"? And why Cruiser? Why not "Heavy ship of the line"? And so on...

Being published in 1776 I would imagine that Gibbon's writing style is perhaps a little antiquated for a non professional historian to digest.

I have never studied the period in any great detail however, Gibbon's work on the fall of Rome is a major piece I'd like to tick off my historical bucket list. I've never studied the period in any great detail, Is this the be all end all place to start? Has it aged well, or is the readability of Gibbon's work to a 20th century amateur historian too convoluted and cryptic?

Cholera is an especially awful disease to see proliferate, so I'm not at all surprised that it was given a sort of pride of place, but how did this specifically monarchical nomenclature come about?

The War of 1812 was never a subject I learned much about in the past, but recently it has peaked my curiosity.

So, what areas did the US army do better (or perhaps worse) in during the War of 1812? Was there any areas where they did just about the same?

You would think being neighbors to the longest lasting country in human history with no geological barriers would be a death wish.

I've been reading Tom Holland's Rubicon and he briefly mentions that Ptolemaic Egypt was essentially composed of two 'separate' territories:

• Alexandria itself, a "free city" where Cleopatra ruled as Queen.

• everywhere except Alexandria, where Cleopatra ruled as Pharoah

I wondered if there was any real difference in terms of the power that the Ptolemaic rulers could wield in these different territories? Holland mentions that in Alexandria, the ruler was supposed to play the part of first among equals (the implication being they were absolute beyond the city) but was there actually a practical distinction?

If so, would the ruler's power be applied purely by geography or citizenship? What I mean is, if an Alexandrian merchant were arrested in Thebes, would they have their Alexandrian citizens rights (whatever those might be) or would they be told 'you're not in Kansas Alexandria' anymore?

Thanks for reading

As an addendum to the question I know that many high ranking officers who had served in World War One also went on to serve in World War Two, but what about enlisted men?

I only know of Downs being known as 'mongoloids' in the 20th century, but can't see much acknowledgement of it previously. Were mentally/developmentally disabled people known to be different? Or were they just known as dumb?

Films often use an audio cue when a gun is moved, handled, or pointed. Usually this is some kind of 'clicking' or cocking sound. Given how widespread this practice seems to be, I'm wondering which film originated this technique.

I've always wondered if Mexicans consider themselves Native American or more or a mix? Did they historically mix with White people?

Update:Asked on r/Mexico and people seemed offended. I apologize if I have offended anyone here!

The relevant quote:

A.D. 671. This year happened that great destruction among the fowls.

This is such a bizarre thing to encounter among the endless lists of who became king and defeated whom in battle, or who was baptized when by which bishop, that I feel like there must be something interesting behind it, but there isn't any detail given except that one bare sentence. After all this time I suppose it's highly unlikely that any other record of the Fowl Destruction Incident Of 671 exists, but a girl can always hope.