What was the estimated population before and after the invasion? Also how accurate are figures for death counts because I heard that info on the population of Ireland isn't very good

We know that, at Cannae, a grossly outnumbered and outmatched Hannibal (40k infantry, 10k cavalry) managed to turn both Roman (80k infantry, 6.4k cavalry) flanks and hit them in the rear with his cavalry. Casualties were in the neighborhood of 5k for the Carthaginians, and at least half, possibly more, of the Romans killed outright. There were some Roman survivors, but no mention of a rout. Instead, the history is that the Romans were encircled, cut off, and simply cut down. Here is what does not make sense:

• With such Roman numerical superiority, they had more than enough men to simply turn and face the flanks and rear. It is not like the men were blind. Their lines were very deep. The guys in the back (who happened to be the best troops, and had spears) could simply do a 180 and face the attack from the new direction. It would put them at a disadvantage, but its far from an invitation to wholesale slaughter.

• Men who are highly trained, heavily armed, surrounded and fighting to the death, historically, have not ever been easy to kill. This is not a matter of breaking morale and causing a rout. Every single dead Roman had a shield and sword and knew how to use them. The idea that they could be killed at better than a 10:1 ratio by inferior troops boggles the mind.

• The only explanation I have seen for the mechanics of the wholesale slaughter is that the Romans were somehow compressed in a way that made it impossible for them to fight. This is unsatisfying to me for several reasons. (1) Romans were trained to fight in dense formations to begin with, so you would have to compress them to a ridiculous extreme to get any results. (2) Only the guys at the outer edge need to be able to fight anyway, and THEY would not be compressed. Their swords and shields would still be pointing outward. (3) If anything, massive compression only results in massive counter-force, with 80,000 Romans pushing each other outward, there is no way a thin line of inferior troops is going to have the power to enforce that compression and maintain it. They'd get trampled. It doesn't matter how scared the front line Roman is if he is getting shoved like an armored human projectile into the enemy lines.

• Certain kinds of weapons allow for potentially hugely mismatched kill ratios, but that isn't what happened here. This was was very short range melee fighting that the Romans had demonstrated superiority with.

So how does the historical account of the battle make sense? It is very difficult to believe that the Romans stood and fought to the death... and yet fought so poorly that they were killed at more than a 10:1 ratio. Envelopment is great for routing, but it does not magically cause men who are trapped and fighting to the death to be unable to fight. Particularly when the "trapped" men outnumber you by such a large degree, you can't claim that you are able to gain much of an advantage from the slight circumference increase you get in frontage.

Clarification: I'm referring to the system of segregation that was affirmed under Plessy v. Ferguson and fought by MLK: separate bathrooms, whites-only restaurants, separate and almost universally worse schools. Were there any African-Americans who thought that a "separate but equal" system would be an acceptable state of affairs?

I'm reading a biography of Charles de Gualle at the moment and I've just come across a part where Khrushchev and de Gualle are talking and Khrushchev says that the Soviets aren't too worried about France getting a nuclear weapon or a 100 of them but they are concerned if Germany gets one (I'm assuming West Germany).

Later, he says that if there is nuclear war that the Soviets would destroy Western Europe and the US. " 'If the USSR and the USA start an atomic war, one already knows who would be the winner', de Gaulle replied, 'China'. 'That's true', Khrushchev replied."

My question would be 1) was West or East Germany ever close to getting the bomb and if so, what were its reasons for avoiding doing so and 2) I've heard about 'plans' that both the Soviets and the Americans had for the Cold War as well as Cuban Missile Crisis but haven't heard anything about China's aims. What were China's aims/goals during the 1960s and the Cuban Missile Crisis? I don't know much about the Sino-Soviet split (in fact, I've just read a blurb on Wikipedia about for the first time). Did this affect their plans in the 60s? Did the focus on the Cultural Revolution distract China and its leaders from a post-nuclear war plan?

From Thomas Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization"

Is this just hyperbole? What exactly does he mean by that statement?

I didn't know how to word it in the title without qualifying for /r/titlegore, but I mean exclusively meat raised for food, not hunting/fishing etc. So after agriculture became a thing. Of course, if you do have information about even hunted meat in the average diet, or just diet in general, I'd be interested in reading that too. But my question is primarily about raising meat.

Basically my question is: was farmed meat a luxury or a common food item? And if meat was common in an average diet, how much of it was raised meat vs hunted?

I was wondering how different it was being in a warring country's navy in WW2 compared to WW1. Did newly developed technology make their lives safer or more dangerous?

Thanks you for providing insight into this topic.

I'll be using Arabic as my counter. As far as we know, Arabic at its core has had the same standards of writing as it has had 1500 years ago. The Qur'an, a 1500 year old text, can be read and understood by pretty much any fluent Arab.

Yet English, in comparison, has changed quite a bit over the last millennia. Take this, for example--a sample of Old English from around 900 CE:

Drihten me raet, ne byth me nanes godes wan.

And he me geset on swythe good feohland.

And fedde me be waetera stathum

Meanwhile, reading the Qur'an or other similar texts by Arabic speakers is no harder than an English speaker reading texts from the 20th century. Is there any explanation as to why that is?

One commonly hears apologists for the Confederacy argue that Secession was a reasoned response to a violation of the social compact that bound the Union together.

But who, exactly, did the "seseshes" actually accuse of violating it? Was it the federal government, as those apologists claim? Or did the violation come from another quarter altogether?

A lot of historians (I've noticed) seem to deduce that there is generally negative intent behind writing and I don't really understand why.

Einhard wrote about Charlemagne the Great in the early to mid 800s AD (The Life of Charlemagne) and is a perfect example because I have heard his book labeled as a propaganda piece. That suggests that Einhard's intentions of endorsing Charlemagne were to indoctrinate their people. But what would the point of that be since the Franks were already... Franks? Besides their assumed loyalty, there is evidence to suggest that the Franks had reason to support Charlemagne. So why would their affection towards him have devious intent?

I can see the connection between Charlemagne and Augustus Caesar; and perhaps this is implying in his (and by extension the Franks) cultural superiority.... and yet Charlemagne's kingdom was already prosperous without the Romans. Where I can see the benefit in a country that is relatively small and unknown aligning itself with Rome, the Franks had their own thing going for them and already had a good relationship with the pope.

Maybe Einhard wrote this for the Roman populace when Charlemagne became the Roman emperor attempting to ease the transition of two cultures coming together. But I don't feel like that should be considered propaganda-- saying, "Hey, don't worry Charlemagne is great", seems rather welcoming.

Regardless of this piece, I seem to hear a lot from multiple sources that people writing in history at the time are purposefully deceiving the reader. But how do we know that? Even if there are conflicting stories, why assume that someone is lying (in that lying is intentional). Sure, some writing is clearly propaganda... but not everything is meant to self-serve, right?

Geoffrey of Monmouth also gets a lot of hate for his History of the Kings of Britain.

How did the Romans prevent slave revolts while their armies were in the field? Was there some ideal ratio of peace keepers:slaves that was found to maintain stability?

What happened during times of peace when a large population of relatively unskilled workers returned home and found that they needed to compete with fresh slaves for jobs? Was conquest so profitable for soldiers that they didn't need to worry about jobs after a campaign?

How was order maintained differently after the Islamic Invasions in central Asia from the 8th to 12th centuries? If I understand correctly, hundreds of thousands of slaves were taken during that period. How did the the social structure adapt to such an influx?

What would her duties be? Her clothes? Her schooling? ect

I mean, what happened to them after the war? How were they treated?

What was the last battle/war that used traditional medieval equipment in Europe? Not sure what defines the end of the "Medieval Era" or the Middle Ages, unless its the renaissance.

Winston Churchill was Prime Minister during WWII and was of course well aware of the work being done at Bletchley Park. I assume that he was aware of Alan Turing (by name) and his major contributions to cracking the German encryption machines.

He was Prime Minister again during Alan Turing's trial for homosexuality and his eventual death. Did Churchill ever make any comment, either publicly or privately, about Turing and his persecution, and did he ever take any steps on Turin's behalf?

I know that the colonized cultures were second class citizens (or worse), but were White British people held accountable at all for crimes against them?

Any examples from the 19th century British colonies would be especially appreciated.

[deleted]