I've always wondered how commanders could keep the soldiers on the frontline from fleeing or turning, when they knew for sure that their risk of dying was incredibly high. Especially in ancient Rome, where commanders/consuls would often deploy their rookie legions at the front (as far as i know).

Hi, I hope this question is OK in this sub, it's not very academic.

Whenever I take out history books from the library to read to the kids they seem to follow the same pattern - everything kind of starts with the Greeks, then the Romans, then the bad Barbarians destroyed everything, but eventually the Middle Ages ended and we had the Reinassance and everything falls into place from there. Sometimes they throw in the Egyptians and Mesopotamia, but that's it. The Islamic golden age is barely mentioned, as are India, or China, or the Ottomans.

Can anyone recommend sources suitable for children / young adults which present world history without giving the West undue importance? Thanks

The media keeps making a huge deal out of how President-Elect Trump might run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments clause because of his overseas hotels, etc. But I don't have any historical context to decide whether or not this is fake outrage.

(Google isn't much help since it just decides to bring back ~200,000 pages of Federal tax advice when I punch in what seems like reasonable keywords.)

I'm aware that an early example of fandom that very often gets mentionned is readers of Sherlock Holmes both writing letters addressed to the fictional detective at 221B Baker Street, and writing angry letters to Conan Doyle and/or the editor of the Strand about the developments (especially Sherlock Holmes' death).

However I wonder if any behaviour resembling that, or behaviour often associated with contemporary fandoms. By this I especially mean discussions among readers (or spectators in the case of plays) of theories on apparent plot holes, unexplained mysteries and scenes not directly shown in the work, as well as sharing of derivative fiction re-using characters and plot from another work.

I mean specifically outside of academia, when would the average person know about dinosaurs in roughly the same way we do now (not as biblical monsters or dragons etc.)

I am re-listening to the wrath of the khan podcasts by Dan Carlin, and checked out the wikipedia article for the Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia. Both of these point out the addition of siege engineers and equipment from China to the Mongol Armies, I wonder how did this affect the famed mobility of the Mongols? Did it not nullify their speed to have to wait for battering rams etc. to be hauled along?

Also, during a campaign like this, do we know how many miles could a Mongol army cover in a day? Thanks!

Hey everybody, first post (I hope I don't screw up with all the rules).

Obviously this question works under the premise that the United States can be defined as an Empire (considering continental aquisition of land and overseas expeditions like the philippine colony). I would like to know if other empires defined themselves differently, or more openly as an "empire"? Probably the contemporary rivals e.g. Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Russia

Perhaps WW2 was a bit different because it was a "war for survival" (as FDR put it), but The Great War also saw casualties that were simply unimaginable today. Imagine the reaction today if Britain lost over 700,00 soldiers in the Gulf War, for example.

I wanna know if anyone in here has any historical opinion on the evidence of the descendants of the ancient Hebrews being black and becoming what is now known today as African Americans and most of the native brown/Hispanic race of the Western Hemisphere.

I recently found out that my great grandfather used POW as farmhands on his estate during the war. He had a lot of land to work and I can imagine that at some point in the war most of his German staff was drafted.

So how did it work? Did business owners write letters to some ministry asking for forced laborers or were they approached by the authorities? Could they just have closed down their business and did something else because they didn't want to participate in this slave economy?

Could a farmer, for example, just sit on his 100 hectars, retiring and not working the land, just because he didn't want to use POWs? Especially when food was of course important during the war.

This was originally a reply to an archived message so sorry if it's a bit out of context. I spent a bit typing it on my phone so when it gave me a reply error I was kinda angry.

I haven't studied this period to deeply and it has been a while since I read the books, but I was under the impression that it was more or less a counter point to the written record. Or maybe what someone would have learned in the British educational system. Much like how many things learned in school have been overturned by archiologey/info access. I always laughed when someone who has his name praised in the account or has written an account is described by Uthred as a scandalous rat like character or a complete lier.

I have not looked but is Uthred historical figure? Back when I read the first 6 books I assumed he was made up since he somehow manages to make it to every major battle on both sides so he can be the unsung hero. He also seems to stay in that zone where nobody important likes him but they all want him on their side. In a way Cornwell must be pointing out the details/key figures lost to time.

Especially because he presided over the defeat of Germany in WW1.

I know alot of criminals were sent to Australia when it was still a colony, but I was wondering if the crime rate actually dropped as a cause of this or if "new" criminals just took their place.

A common quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, or Vladimir Lenin goes somewhere along the lines of "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them with". Did any notable communists actually say this quote? If not, where did it come from?

I came across the SPQR which means "The Senate and People of Rome"(Hopefully i got that right.) However, I am well aware that Rome also had her emperors(Caesar - Commodus - Augustus, Hadrian, etc.). Please forgive me if im gonna reference Rome(The one in HBO) and Roman Empire: Reign Of Blood(Netflix). In the series, the emperors would often replace senators or add more. Another instance I notice is that in Roman Empire: Reign Of Blood,. One of the senators(Dio) said to Commodos how the senate is an extension of the empire. But later on in the series when he became very caught up in his power, he didn't allow the Senate to govern the Empire. But I know that the Emperor can also govern his empire solo(right?) but I tend to notice that both Emperor and Senate would often go far enough to kill each other.

So, Im just really asking is that, who ultimately had the power in Rome? was it the senate or the Emperor?. Or was the power equally rested upon both parties? thanks!

In the Renaissance the so called Five Good Emperors of the 2nd century Roman Empire is to have brought the Empire to its heights. They were depicted as brilliant and good. That depiction has stayed in the popular consciousness.

But what was the reputation of this dynasty during the Roman Empire itself?

Would it be relatively dense like a suburb? What defenses were in place on that side of the horn?

People like Methusela being 900 is okay, because his age seems to be a central factor in his importance, but it seems as though every other major person in the Bible lived to be over 100. That's outrageous even now. Is there some cultural significance to the ages I'm missing?

I'd like to read something about how Japan got from it's state during the Taishou period to it's state at the start of WWII. Any recommendations?

Many historical figures just get a bad reputation because they conquered people who didn't want to be conquered. Nero seems almost Hitler level evil. Was he actually that bad?