Maybe there's information out there that I don't know about. But, I'm reading Goldsworthy's biography on Caesar and I just can't fathom how multiple tribal groups could number in the hundreds of thousands and yet... not build any lasting structures, not have a written language, and could pick up and move their entire tribe for long periods.

The mobility of the tribes has me imagining American Indians, yet... Caesar stayed in "noblemen's homes" so they must have built something decent enough to qualify as a house right? How could you do that without written language? And if we don't have any of these tribal homes today they must not have been very robust?

Even if the huge migrating groups are federations of smaller tribes, 10 or 20 thousand people in a group is a huge number. That's a decent sized town in 2017 America which requires a lot of infrastructure and coordination to get by.

So what kind of homes or tents or hovels or what did these tribal people live in? Obviously they farmed because they supply grain to the Romans, and they must have had specialists like blacksmiths because they had weapons, correct? Maybe carpenters, tailors too?

I guess to me, specialized/settled/robust class structure doesn't jive with large/mobile/no witten language.

Any experts out there? Thanks

A description of said event, what kind of fighting, and what role artillery played would be much appreciated.

Was it to distinguish ourselves? Give everyone a sense of individuality? If so, that may have worked for a time, but now three spaces aren't even enough to give unique names.

In the ealry 1700s you hear of pirates like Benjamin Hornigold, Blackbeard, Henry Jennings etc. Im just curious as to how they generally got started? Steal a ship? Steal money and buy one? Just always been curious.

I've noticed that during the late medieval period, the 2 most distinct styles Milanese and Gothic style armor. But what about plate armor that was symmetrical and not fluted? was there specific name for it? I mean I've heard the term white armor being tossed around here and there and I think it refers to armor that is polished as apposed to black armor, which i think refers to unpolished armor (that might also be painted over)

Basically, had the Japanese been planning on the war leading up to the Chinese Incident all along, or did they actually blunder into it without realizing what the conflict would entail? What was Japan's plan for China post-conquest? Did they have a detailed layout of how they would occupy it after the war?

[deleted]

Often when we are hear about the government of the USSR people like Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. are portrayed as an absolute dictator of sorts.

However, when I read about the USSR whether it be in fictional stories or history on the nation you get references to things like the politburo who sometimes sound like they are the real decision makers in the USSR.

So how was the government of the USSR structured? Did the politburo have different political powers than the General Secretary? Who was the official head of state (if there was any)?

Sorry if this might be against the rules, but I'm in a crossroads in life right now where I need to pick what subjects to do in uni. I've read the threads on employability, what you learn, etc and I know the risks, but I still have a deep interest in studying history and I think I'll continue doing so.

What I really want to ask is why some of you do history as a subject. I've always had an intense passion in the subject but I've never really been able to put to words why I find history so interesting and want to study It further in university. Could any historians talk about why they chose the subject and what they think the importance is?

After reading up on German History, I know that Bismarck engineered the Franco-Prussian war to consolidate the alliance between Prussia and the southern German states in order to ultimately reform Germany. However, Historians such as Christopher Clark in The Iron Kingdom states that "taking Alsace Lorraine was probably the biggest mistake in Bismarck's career" due to the repercussions it had and how it led to Germany's eventual isolation. If Bismarck, being the genius he was, knew that he could never reconcile with France if Alsace-Lorraine was taken, why did he do it?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was looking at other posts and realized today's society has so many suvonienrs from every city so I am curious is this a new phenomenon or did empires such as the Romans have shops or sculptures for tourist and travelers to take home that showed off the architecture or culture of these cities? Did they sell minitatur models of important landmarks?

My friend keeps insisting this is true. I've tried looking it up but can't find a source anywhere, but he still says he heard it once from a reliable source. I'm very skeptial and almost certain it wasn't Bruce Lee. If not Bruce Lee then who was the first, and if he was is there a source that confirms this?

My stepfather is of the opinion that the reason Britain won the war with Germany is solely down to the superior range finder on the HMS Warspite and its affect in the Battle of Narvik. (He also coincidentally owns this rangefinder)

He says the Battle of Britain was irrelevant in terms of stopping a German invasion, and that the destruction of 10 German destroyers, which was all down to this magical rangefinder, is the reason Germany couldnt invade Britan and win the war.

I find it hard to believe, in a war over so many years with numerous countries involved, that this is the one reason Germany lost, so i thought id ask you to see he is full of shit. He also says that the only reason Britain won in the Falklands is because the USA lost in Vietnam but thats another question.

I live in Denver and the parts of it laid out up to what I guess is the 1950s are mostly a coherent and easily navigable grid pattern, with some exceptions. But everything after that time is just a meandering non-sensical jumble of roads. But its not just Denver its every city I've ever lived in. What happened?

The claims vary — either that their religion was purely ritualistic, but they didn't take it literally, or it was not mystical, or some such nonsense. The case seems unique to Greece and Rome, and no one ever claims that say, Egyptians or Babylonians were the same way.

What I'm wondering is if it's, at least on some level, the legacy of the Renaissance — could it be said that the antiquity got somewhat 'secularized' by Italian humanists to present the ancient authors in a way that would better fit contemporary times?

I'm looking for a book or a list of books to learn about World War II

Also why was Roosevelt so "sympathetic" to Russia during negotiations?

Mostly interested in the armor, but the others too.

I've always heard that the German government tried to keep it secret for the most part, but did the Germans suspect that something was going on?

[deleted]