fail in the title: "why they" = "why the germans"

I often read or listen that the Germans were looking down to their allies because those were not so good equipped or commanded. Why, in crucial campaigns like Operation Blue (1942, it ends with Stalingrad), they did not just incorporated them giving them their equipment?

In other words, why they did not ask their allies just for manpower, and the rest would have been made by the German army?

My high school history textbook calls them terrorists, but I disagree. However, I haven't asked my teacher anything about it for fear of being called an anti-Semite for not jumping on the bandwagon that every single bad thing said about the Nazis is instantly true irregardless of its actual accuracy.

Please help me with this question! Thanks!

I read a couple of mentions in this sub about a borrowing of Nazi elements by Arab ideologies and I would appreciate it someone here may elaborate on that topic. Thank you.

I enjoy reading histories that focus on the geographical factors that influence economic, intellectual, political, and military developments, etc. At the most surface level it seems that the same geography that allowed the Romans to conquer the Italian peninsula might have facilitated subsequent unification efforts prior to the 19th century. Either that thinking overemphasizes the role of Italian geography in the Roman conquest, or other factors trumped it. I'm wondering what explanations historians have considered.

As always, I thank the historians who post here. This is the most educational subteddit I've found, and one of the most entertaining.

Shamelessly copied from a moderator comment.

Well, in the late 19th century we see support for democracy rise, especially in the German Empire where you already had political parties and everything. Like the SPD arguing for more Democracy. But obviously there were also parties that were conservative and supported the monarchy. What arguments did they have that they preferred a monarchy over a democracy? Was it mostly aristocrats and rich people being in favor of a monarchy or also normal working people?

I'm currently reading The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and so far many battles between armies of thousands of soldiers seem to be settled by one on one battles between commanders, at times it seems before any other fighting has taken place. When a commander is defeated lines break and the "battle" ends in a huge retreat.

Is it accurate then that battles were settled via one on one combat often rather than large scale clashing of troops? Or did battles start but the defeat of a commander often ended them? Or am I misunderstanding the battles completely and this is more of a way to centre the stories around a few dozen major characters.

I've been reading the Sharpe series of books by Bernard Cornwell and I am fascinated by this era, however I find that the way he describes the loading of muskets and rifles by British infantry to be inconsistent, or I'm otherwise misunderstanding.

Sometimes he describes them biting off the bullet from the cartridge and then ramming it down on top of the wadding and powder but I thought the whole point of the wadding was to go on top of the bullet in order to stop it falling out of the barrel? And other times he mentions that they prime the pan last, but surely you'd want to prime the pan first because it's easier to prime first and then simply pour the rest down the barrel than trying to estimate leaving enough to prime the pan with? (Unless you're using a separate powder horn to prime the pan, which he does mention with the Baker rifles).

Obviously the books are fiction and also men may not follow the drill to the letter during the heat of battle, but is there a book or manual from the time that definitively describes the correct loading drill for flint-lock muskets and rifles circa 1800?

Thanks.

The historian monk Matthew Paris wrote that King John offered to convert to Islam in return for military aid from Muhammad al-Nasir. I gather this is not thought to be true. So was this anti-John propaganda, a genuine error or something else?

Is this, given this was the time of Crusades against that ruler, an early example of Islam being regarded as a threat at home as well as abroad?

Got into an argument with someone about this. He claims they were always actively persecuted and killed, whether they be dominant or receiving homosexuals.

I argued that dominant homosexuals were totally fine, and only receivers were shunned, sometimes exiled, almost never killed. I based this mainly on Sorensen, a Norwegian historian, and the fact I've read Ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus Norsemen.

Which is correct, or is it in the middle?

Specifically, is there any reason to believe that the hippie movement was backed or encouraged by political groups in Washington who had ulterior motives behind it? With communism also playing a part, is there any evidence of foreign Infulence on the "peace and love" ideals popular at the time?

EDIT: title should read "Gimmie Danger"

This question builds on the hypothesis that people in the front row in a melee battle were very likely to die. First, is this assumption correct? If so, for an individual point of view it was not very desirable to be in the front row but in a strategic point of view, having the best warriors in the front would more sense (I assume).

I am also interested in battles of ancient Rome or Greece if that is your expertise. Probably the answer to the question varies from point in time and how important the first row was for an army setup vs the honor involved of dying in battle of a particular culture (?)

I'm curious about the organization of Medieval European armies. What did the command structure look like, and how many men would each person be in charge of? How were orders passed around, both in and out of battle? How disciplined were the men? Were they professional soldiers or conscripts?

I know "Medieval Europe" is a very broad subject, but I don't yet know enough to narrow down my question. Feel free to answer about any time in the period.

I know that there was some major trade when America was discovered in the 18th century and stuff got exchanged between the New World and the Old, but how did something like chili peppers, which were mainly from South America, become one of the staple components in Indian cooking. Also note, how did tomatoes become a staple in Italian cooking despite tomatoes also originating in South America? Sorry if I got any of my assumptions wrong.

So I'm looking at the Battle of Britain with my high school history class at the moment and I've got these two numbers for pilots lost during the Battle of Britain. RAF - 520 and Luftwaffe 2600+. Every other number seems to be in a similar range with the exception of maritime patrols where Germany lost many more but I wouldn't think that would count towards pilot loses.

This is from a ppt from another teacher so could be a terrible source.

At the moment I'm thinking it must be the fact that British pilots could bail out and get home easier but I'm not sure if that's the full story.

Woodward and Bernstein took a while to reach the President in their investigations -- plenty of time for Nixon to destroy his voice recordings. Why didn't he?

To my knowledge the most used building material for most of the 1700s was wood for residential houses and stone for more important structures like churches. So in places like London, Munich, Paris, Rome, etc. how many of the privately owned or rented houses were made of wood? Was the 1700s a transitional period where other materials became used or did that not happen until later? Are there any documents or historically grounded estimates that would point to an answer? Thanks.

I know that the lance was mainly used by cavalry units, while the spear and pike were infantry weapons, but what were the key differences between them? Was it the length of the weapon, or the shape of the head?

I have been watching Hell on Wheels recently (set in the late 1860s) and had a random thought: considering the bitterness many southerners felt about the outcome of the Civil War as well as the issues of the Reconstruction period, when did it become common for southerners to join the US military again?

Hey everyone. I'm in a graduate readings course on the history of the Russian Empire, and I've been given (nearly) complete freedom to choose my book for the week we discuss the Crimean War. I'm looking for a military history, particularly one that focuses on the Russian narrative. I'd prefer a book that balances operational/tactical with diplomatic/strategic coverage. Let me know what you've got!