iv just read something on Dunkirk and it was talking about how the nazis could have potential decimated 400,000 British soldiers. so why dident they. this goes in hand with other things iv heard like how in d day no one woke Hitler up to deploy his panzer divisions. and even once we was awake he waited until the evening to do anything. why would they not use every advantage available to them?

From it's foundation, or even before, up to now. Thanks

I understand that the uprising id the Iceni and the preceeding events roughly occured as the story goes. However, I struggle to believe the Romans confiscated the tribes lands and just had Boudicca clogged and her daughters raped. Were there actions that caused this extreme Roman aggression? Or was it stock standard for the Romans, upon absorbing a client, to savage the social elite he leave them alive? Or were these events added to the story over years to create sympathy for the rebellion?

I am writing my dissertation on the Rise of Sinn Fein and I ask for any recommendation of books that will help me to understand the factors that lead to Sinn Fein's rise in popularity in Ireland.

I would welcome authors with differing perspectives. Thanks for all of your help.

Blanco's translation or the Landmark Thucydides by Strassler and Crowley.

Better in terms of (1) ease of reading and (2) accuracy to original text's ideas.

I've been puzzling over American infantry during WW2 (namely in the ETO). One thing that pops up often is the "greenness" of American infantry, at least relative to the Germans. I would imagine (although this is a separate issue in and of itself) that if the units had their veteran soldiers cycled out, it would adversely effect the performance of the unit. So: how often were soldiers in the US army during WW2 phased out, and did this affect overall quality of the infantry? Thanks for reading.

How would you be able to live without being able to leave the house for weeks on end?

I've been reading a number of dated history book lately. What is the most effective way to find up to date critiques of those books. For example, I recently finished The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. I know that there has been a lot of work since then that contradicts portions of this book, and I'm sure that there methodological issues that have been picked over. Not being a historian, I'd like to find a resource that will explain all these to me. And lots of books are controversial or flawed they day they are released.

Is there a good resource for this somewhere? This questions is applicable to all history books, not just TRaFotTR. Specifically, I would like to line up some dated popular history books with some good critiques ahead of time, then read both in order.

Related question: Are there any good texts on the influence of important historical texts? IE, is there something that can put TRaFotTR itself and other influential books in their historical context?

Do these kind of data exist anywhere, or does anyone have any idea of where I can look? I'd be interested in data from any point in history from around the year 1,000 onward.

[deleted]

Mid-century, military doctrine seems to be line regiments, and still relatively colourful uniforms. By the outbreak of world war one, soldiers are in trenches in muted colours.

Is the change in standard arms responsible for such change, or were other factors present and effective during such a period?

I have realised I understand say, the US civil war period ok, and WWI ok, but the mid section is a blank spot in my knowledge of military history.

My understanding is the left and right got attached to liberal and conservative in the French Revolution. I don't really know for sure if that's true, but why has it suck around for so long?

It seems very arbitrary to be so durable.

We have all seen those kinds of movies. Chainmail? Plate armor? protects as much as if the enemies bathed on butter! Swords are everywhere, used by everyone, and cut everything.

The thing is, however, in reality, swords were worthless. Unles your enemy was a peasant in their torn little pulovers, your enemy was impervious to your sword, unless you could stab like a GOD.

Given this... Why the obsession with swords? What's the historical background of it? Could it be that the nobles, who moved from warriors to bureaucrats, having lost their knowledge of warfare, idolised the fist thing they found worthy based on its price? Because swords were, on top of being useless, insanely expensive.

By all accounts it would have been a crushing defeat to King Peter... why did the Swedes stop the advance? If speculative questions are allowed, what might have happened in the aftermath had they advanced?