The assumption in the question is that Iron weapons and armor are somehow better than Bronze, and I base this on the fact that the Bronze age predates the Iron age.

Copper and Tin seem much more scarce, especially considering that Tin was mainly only available from the British Isles. Why is it that this alloy of metals, one of which was very difficult to find, was used by ancient people when Iron was much more plentiful?

William Yale asked Weizmann what he would do if the British did not support the Balfour Declaration for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Yale said, "Weizmann pounded his fist on the table and the teacups jumped. 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire."

I'm mainly wondering if they would have used the Kodak 35 (a camera I just bought). I know it was widely used by US forces but I was wondering if it was also popular with the British as well in an official (film crews) or non-official capacity (troops sneaking cameras on the battlefield).

While their contributions are invaluable, let's be honest, many historians are notorious for fabricating some of the craziest things. Yet many of these lies nonetheless come through and end up as established facts. So here are some questions i believe would be crucial:

1. What are your methods to determine if a historian has lied?
2. How do you identify false flags in history?
3. How do you determine a historian's biases? What most people do is counter with their own biases (lol), which can't be good enough. Eespecially if the historian is dead?
4. Let's say you, as a historian, wanted to lie and pass it as truth, what are the some of the best ways you can think of for that?

So this 2 hour special is about to come on. It's on the history channel. Should I bother?

I'm currently reading Rubicon by Tom Holland and I have a few questions.

What were Caesar's "criminal actions of his first consulship" that Cato was 'fulminating' against? (p.297). Was this the crossing of the Rhine to take up battle? Was this to do with fighting the Gauls? Or was it the way in which he was elected? Have I missed something or mixed it up?

It seems that everyone bribed anyone they could to get elected, so it surely can't be that? (I've also tried to look at previous AskHistorians answers about the set up of the Roman government and how it worked but it looks like the good answer has been deleted two years ago).

Also, I get that both Caesar and Pompey would want to give land to their veterans. Was there a way in which this was done? Was there a plan for this? Who did they buy the land from and how much would one be given?

Finally, given that Caesar was being given the title of Dictator, was there any comparison to Sulla at that time from other senators, colleagues, etc.? It seems that everyone had a hated memory of the civil war time, so wouldn't that be the same when Caesar took that title? Did it change when it went from 10 years to life?

Edit: I guess heavy Pikemen could be a contender.

I've been doing some reading surrounding the proposed Franco-British Union, and saw that British Prime Minister Anthony Eden rejected this idea. To quote Wikipedia, where I was doing the reading:

In September 1956, due to a common foe during the Suez Crisis, an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French Union with Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship. As an alternative, Mollet proposed that France join the Commonwealth. British Prime Minister Anthony Eden rejected both proposals and France went on to join the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community and strengthened the Franco-German cooperation.

Are there a particular reasons why Eden rejected these specific proposals?

I'm not aware of any bra found between the Roman strophium and the 15th century brasssière found. Admitting, rather wrongly and unfairly, that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence (can't say the same for panties given the vital necessity ever since Homo Sapiens invented clothing and women had periods), did all women walk around with nipples pointing out? Given the chastity (so-called and so-clsimed) of say nuns and prinxesses, wouldn't it be unseemly? Same as men having bulging codpieces became taboo and unfashionable after a while. Or does that simple fact guarantee bras or strophiums did exist, just that the material evidence is too scanty? (On panties, Owen-Crocker founds sign of them under the undershirts of female Saxon and Danish dresses and skirts in burials.)

This might sound like a stupid question and to be honest, it probably is.

Last Friday my friend and I got into a bit of a drunken argument about tanks for some unknow reasons. He said that "tanks are mostly made from iron and concrete" which sounded super impractical to me so an argument started.

In his imagination tank armor is made in the style of a layer of reinfroced concrete with two layers of steel under and above it. We googled around a bit that night and found nothing about concrete being used in the construction of tanks, but he still refuses to admit he was wrong and I am still interested in the question.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concept of add-on armor in the form of sand bags, wood or concrete. My question is whether or not concrete was ever used as a material during the "primary" construction of a tank, preferably during WW2