He knew what was likely his fate in Roman hands,

why submit after such a harsh struggle, not to mention doing it in such a personal manner with Caesar?

Is there anything suggesting that there was some kind of a deal to spare some Gauls from the wrath of the now battered and furious Roman army?

Today the news was filled with OJ Simpson, and I'm sitting here wondering what the hell kind of shitshow happened back then. I thought he went to prison for the murders? But then I look it up and find out he got sent to prison for something else entirely. Now I know that you guys can't answer about that case, but all my life I've been afraid to ask about it because it seemed like the most obvious thing - it's been referred to as the trial of the century. But then I start asking and it turns out that none of the people I know have any real idea what happened either, so I'm stuck.

Then I start reading about it and the whole thing is a damn mess. Kardashians were involved (I actually knew about this) but how the hell did they get all the recognition out of all the lawyers on the case? How did the whole thing go down? The more I read about it the more gargantuan of a clusterfuck it seems like. How did OJ end up being acquitted, I thought it was a sure thing that he did do it?

An old post, which I can not find, on this subreddit asked how American English could change so fast in such a short time compared to English English after the founding of the U.S.

A historian here responded that that is an old misconception and clarified how the English and overall British English have changed more than American English during that time.

Apparently, the rhotic R sound – that many associate with American English – was originally used by the British upperclass. This is what the historian claimed, although he never mentioned WHY it went out of style among the British upperclass. I'd really like to know why.

Is there an historical reason for this phenomenon? Are these foods sold in different units in other countries? This question was asked two years ago, but received no responses.

Basically trying to ask what autonomy, if any, they had in decision- and policy-making.

This seems absolutely absurd when I first heard about it but I can't seem to find a straight answer to it. Some say yes, absolutely not, or yes but he was lying.

I know he gave a speech to the generals a few months before the invasion talking about Living room. And even detailed elaborate plans of defeating England and France... Thing is, by 1939 he was pretty certain that the Allies weren't willing to negotiate so this could be seen as being practical to think of the blowback an armed invasion of Poland would bring.

As far as living room, it seems that it can be argued that all of his recent "reunifications" have been because the Germans living there were being oppressed. I buy it, since the Germans took the brunt of the blame of WW1. So when he "liberated" East Prussia he needed efficient access to it, which cut through Poland. From what I understand he was negotiating either to annex Danzig and North Poland into Germany and allow the Poles to have a protected trade road to the sea through it. Or vice versa, allow Germany a protected trade road through Danzig into East Prussia.

Apparently he tried many times to negotiate for this, and even delayed the invasion because he kept wanting one more crack at a peaceful solution. Poland thought Britain and France would protect them from all out invasion, and Britain also assured them that Germany would be shelling the borders for weeks. They never expected a horrific, bloody, decisive, and very quick invasion that lasted only 18 days.

I even heard that Hitler let a battalion of British troops freely escape back to Britain as a show of good faith that he did not want world war.

At this point I've only seen a map on a very sketchy you tube video that claims Hitler was then offering all the German claimed Poland back, but not Russia and of course not the Danzig area. Is that real? I can't find evidence for that anywhere else and I feel like I've been looking hard.

I feel it necessary to disclaim that in no way do I think Hitler wasn't a bad guy. The reason I'm so darn curious about this is because it means that World War 2 could have been avoided both before and after the Poland invasion. But the rumour is that Churchill was absolutely determined for a years long war, and Stalin was giddy for a European War that would weaken capitalism and make it ripe for communism.

I'm not in any way a historian and given the nature of this topic I may have easily stumbled upon some bias interpretations of events. I just want to know what really happened with Poland.

Thanks!

When I see modern media (movies, books, video games) set in the past, it feels like there's a big difference in how people from these time periods act/talk/think. I don't know if this is 'a thing' or if I'm just seeing things, so hear me out.

In the "ancient" category, I think of stuff like Spartacus, HBO's Rome, Xena, and the city-builder games like Caesar and Pharaoh. Doesn't matter if the tone is serious or campy, ancient people seem to be pretty down to earth, they talk normally, they tend to like their vices more...I dunno, they just "feel" like regular people in a different time period. On the flip side, the middle ages feel kind of rigid. Excalibur, Crusader Kings, any Shakespeare movie, A Knight's Tale, Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, even Game of Thrones to a lesser extent. The poor people are more downtrodden and pious, everyone cares about the lords a lot more, everyone's more pious, and they talk like they're at a RenFair. GoT is kind of the exception in some ways, but even though it's not really medieval, that's the spirit of it, and the peasants have "pious hive-mind" syndrome. I'm pretty sure the fall of Rome didn't flip a switch somewhere that made the actual people act differently, so what's up with all this? Am I even making any sense?

Excluding the Germans, were the troops, naval support, equipment, provided by Mussolini sufficient for the Nationals victory? Reading an older history book detailing Italy's involvement, where one author claims that while there was a stand-off between forces through fatigue and depletion, it was the Italians that made a huge difference.

I'm currently reading King Leopold's Ghost, and in it the author mentioned that the Kongo at the time had a very complex organization but yet did not have writing. I was wondering how was the King able to keep track of whether or not people paid taxes and other administrative aspects without writing. Did they record it some other way that might be similar to writing but not called writing? Wouldn't that just make tax evasion much easier and prevalent?

According to Wikipedia, it has never been conquered by any foreign power, despite being somewhat of a nexus between India and China. Can anyone share some more of this country's history?

Wikipedia talks about their function and mentions Ottoman castration of slaves to serve as guards and high level functionaries but this isn't really an answer for castrated opera singers in Western Europe. How would a boy end up becoming a castrato and how would that change his life beyond the obvious physical alteration?

Were most castrati slaves, singers/actors, or was it not as stigmatized as I'm imagining?

It seems natural that, since the allies had more planes, crew, and ordinance than the Germans, it would make sense to simply overwhelm the defenders by wearing them down in a given area.

Not only would the defenders themselves perform poorly as they fought fatigue, the German's logistical capabilities to provide ammunition and fuel would be stretched as well. The Germans would then have to either reposition people and planes, leaving other areas vulnerable, but also furthering their logistical issues.

The potential problem that I see is that early waves would be chewed up by the AA and fighters focused on them, but perhaps that could be managed by having them bomb from higher altitudes and sending more fighter escorts on early waves.

I've read a little bit about Medieval naval battles. I know that they are often described as "land battles at sea" as the primary tactic was to ram into the opposing side's ship, board the ship, and then fight the opposing crew to take over the ship. In contrast, in modern naval warfare, the ships themselves are armed, and the goal would normally be to sink the opposing ship, as opposed to having your men board the ship and fight the opposing crew.

My question is when did this evolution start to take place and what were some of the first sea battles that involved more ship-to-ship style combat? Was the evolution in naval warfare tactics rapid or was there a long transitional time with a blend of tactics?

I know that the Battle of Sluys in the Hundred Years' War took place in 1340, and fit into the "land battle at sea" category. From what I know of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, it sounds like it also fit into the "land battle at sea" category. So when and where did the transition start to take place?

I should clarify that I recently watched videos from a YouTube channel called Man at Arms, in which the smiths recreate swords like Frostmourne, LOTR blades or Optimus Prime's sword. And then I started wondering about all the swords in myths and modern movie culture like Excalibur and the like.

Surely Egyptians were not the only ones to build research areas or libraries. I am curious if there were other such locations in other cultures at around the same time or even before, and where can I get more information about them if they do/did exists?

Forgive me if this isn't the proper place to ask this, but I've always been curious why there has been so much hatred for Jewish people. From Auschwitz, to stories from the Bible, to general anti-semitism to me seems baseless. What am I missing here?

I'm a fourth generation Canadian who has been researching his genealogy over the last few days. It appears my family first came to America in 1774 and arrived in Philadelphia, eventually settling in North Carolina. During my research I came across the 1810 and 1820 census and discovered that my family owned two slaves for at least 10 years.

As a Canadian I didn't learn a great deal about slavery beyond the basics. I'm interested in understanding what kind of relationship my ancestors had with their slaves, how were they treated, what was their life probably like? Obviously this would all be speculation, but if someone can comment on what rights and freedoms slaves enjoyed at this time, as well as some specific commentary about how slaves were treated in North Carolina during this time period, it would be much appreciated!

Without entering current events and political soapboxing, how prevalent were anti-Israel ideas in America before 1997? Was there always an anti-Israel idea or is it more of a recent construct? And was it always a partisan issue (Republicans vs. Democrats) or is the partisanship also a more recent construct?

During World War 2, how affective were the kamikazes as opposed to normal bombs? Were they more damaging for the most part?