I learned, in my high school history classes, that World War I was fought in the trenches and that the casualties were huge. Furthermore, the implication (sometimes explication) from my history teachers was always that the casualties were so huge because the soldiers were being led by incompetent men.

Where did the commanders of both sides of World War I (Petain, Falkenhayn, Haig, etc.) screw up? What mistakes did they make in planning their strategies and tactics that cost so many lives? Or was trench warfare inevitable with the technologies of the time?

Considering that he was of farmer descent, one would normally theorize that he did not possess the knowledge/education that most 'samurai-born' had since birth. And yet he was always hailed as a fantastic diplomat and administrator, and a very skilled (and ruthless) commander. However, I do not believe in geniuses, and I am curious to know how exactly Hideyoshi knew so much.

I can theorize that his famous 'castle-flooding' tactic came from his past as a farmer, but what about the rest?

P.S: If anyone can link me to good sources on Hideyoshi's carreer from farmer to Tenkabitou, it would also be very appreciated.

Oswald Mosley was a popular British fascist who tried to turn the UK into a fascist country. Oswald Mosley held fascist rallies with incredibly large turnouts. Over 80,000 people turned up to hear him speak at Earl's Court.

Oswald Mosley was imprisoned and his political party was disbanded. Was there any public outcry, and how did the government deal with it?

Since revolts in places like Haiti were very successful, was it something whites in the States considered plausible?

Considering that the British fought the Opium Wars against China, and lots of European colonial powers effectively divided China up into 'zones' where they could trade, why were the Japanese able to then go on to conquer much of China? Why didn't they also have to defeat the Europeans, who presumably would've still seen their parts of China as in their interest? Or had the European influence in China already collapsed by the time Japan invaded?

This may sound like a silly question, but I'm genuinely curious. The turkey is not known for being a graceful creature.

[deleted]

I have tons of questions, but I get super nervous posting on here. I thought this was a good topic to break the ice with and see how it went :)

I am very curious, from how I understand it. Japan was very segregated from the western world until the arrival of the Dutch. Japan had an established ruling system with the Emperor, and Daimo over specific land area's.

In Western culture it was similar, yes? With a King and lords ruling over a specific area of land.

With no contact whatsoever as far as we know, how did these two very similar ways of living develop?

Was it just a matter of everyone figuring out, "Hey, this is the best way to do things?"

I stumbled upon the idea of 'Mukhannath' translating to effeminate man or a man with female characteristics. I was just wondering if men were defined by their 'inversion' of gender would that be indicative of perhaps being defined by their sexual choices also or would homosexuality as a concept be anachronistic?

[deleted]

For nearly 10 years I have been trying to have some historical theories evaluated. If they are correct, they would be significant discoveries. I do not want to just post them online since they would likely be lost on the web, plus I do not want to spread pseudoscience or just give someone else the idea who then claims the credit. Unfortunately for me as well, some of them involve subjects usually considered taboo by many academic authorities (i.e., historical antecedents for various Greek, Biblical, and Medieval myths). When I contact history departments at universities, I am given the cold shoulder since I am an independent investigator (mind you, this is before I even mention the nature of my theories). I have therefore done my best as an amateur to write up my theories in an academic fashion and submit them to academic journals. They repeatedly get sent to peer review, so I feel the editors agree they must have some merit. However, the peer reviewers keep shooting me down over presentation errors (wanting original texts rather than texts in translation, wanting phrasing adjusted, wanting counterpoint discussions on modern opinions on some of these subjects despite being beyond the article word limits, etc.). Often one reviewer will contradict the others in their demands. I am sure I am making many amateur mistakes in presentation, because I am an amateur. I fix the problems and resubmit to a new journal. More months go by. Slowly the papers become more polished, but I feel there must be a better way than this. Collaboration or direct professional advice would prevent many of these amateur mistakes, anticipate reviewer concerns, or even identify ideal journals or forums for presenting these ideas. Conversely, some reviewers have remarked very positively on my theories but instead of recommending article publication have instead recommended I pursue an academic book or a monograph as they feel the article format is too confining to properly elaborate on some of my arguments and theses. I do not have the credentials to do this. As a result, my manuscripts gather dust on shelves. Finally, a recent manuscript was nearly accepted after 18 months of peer review by multiple reviewers with recommendations for a couple of changes to references, but I do not have access to the references they recommend since I am an independent investigator. So am stuck in a Catch-22: I cannot publish without credibility, but I cannot get credibility without being published. What is there to be done? Thank you for any suggestions.

[deleted]

I was wondering if anyone could point me to a source discussing the empire-wide locations of the comitatus and/or limitanei? There are plenty of maps online that indicate where the legions of the Principate were placed, but I cannot find any from the Dominate period. I've so far only found the names of the comitatus in the West and East, but not the locations in which they were stationed.

Any help with this would be great.

This would be around the rule of Cambyses II, if I remember correctly. What was actually going on in Arabia around that time and was their strength actually the reason it wasn't incorporated into the empire?

As far as I know Jesus was born around 1AD (+/- 3 years depends on a source ) but what was the year when he was born, before we started diving years between BC and AD? What would he have in his birth certificate?

In the movie the spartans are portrayed as naked warriors with only helmet, sword and shield, and often broke formations to engage in an all out melee. On the other side, Persians' "immortals" were all wearing iron masks and wielding at least two swords, what seems to me as an unecessary expense, which makes me doubt of the accuracy.

My understanding is that a lot of Templar assets were either conferred upon other orders such as the Knights Hospitaller, or were allowed to be used by Knights transitioning into a purely monastic life. This begs the question, was there ever a large stash of treasure which did not contribute to the aforementioned, and just disappeared following the order's demise?

I think of Marathon, Cannae, Gaugamela, Adrianopolis and many other battles and notice there have been no excavations. Was all material lost?