I have been reading about this battle, and am amazed that Crassus thought infantry could withstand so many professional horse, especially the archers. The Roman infantry were sitting ducks vs. some of the best horse archers in the world. The Parthians mitigated limited arrows with a vast camel supply of them, and the Parthian heavy horsemen were able to take effect whenever the Roman infantry might fortify too much vs. the missiles. It boggles me that the Romans would have had no inkling of this type of fighting. Crassus was not a 0% general, as he had defeated Spartacus. Perhaps there is no good explanation for such folly, but I wanted to ask none-the-less.

So I just watched the South Park movie (1999) and it appears that people already had a negative view of Saddam. When did that happen, and why did it happen?

What dictator or world leader would we compare him to today, if there is even an equivalent? I was born in 1995, so basically I'm only aware of the

There is this air of mystery surrounding the Maya and the disappearance of their civilization. Is there any conclusive evidence for what caused it? Does anyone have any scholarly works I can draw information from?

My eventual plan is to go to grad school for history, although that is by no means set in stone. I'm also open to teaching. As of right now, my plan is to get into a PhD program after I finish undergrad and attempt to find a job in academia. If that doesn't work out (which I know is likely, given the current economic climate), I was thinking I could get into museum work or find a job at a high school.

Anyone have any comments on this? Is there anything I should be doing in undergrad to make myself more attractive to graduate programs? I'm specifically interested in Western European history in antiquity and the Middle Ages (which I know is a very broad period of time). Also, does anyone know anything about the history department at my school (UCLA)?

From a cursory google search, I have noticed almost all tanks and airplanes used in combat during WWI and WWII had gasoline/petrol engines as opposed to diesel engines.

Both the diesel and four-stroke gasoline engines were invented in the 1890s.

Diesel fuel is easier to refine than gasoline and far less flammable. Does anyone have any idea why militaries used gasoline so much more prevalently in the early to mid 20th century?

California and Oregon never seceded from the Union during the Civil War, and presumably contributed in some capacity to put down the rebellion between 1861 and 1865.

But being separated by the eastern states by the Rockies, before there was a Trans-Continental Railroad, and before the Panama Canal made for faster shipping between the American coasts, it must have been very difficult for these two states (and then Nevada in 1864) to contribute substantially.

What exactly did these Western states contribute to the war effort for the Union? Troops? Supplies? Did California or Oregon men play key roles in battles or campaigns? Would love to know!

[deleted]

Hi all! I'm working on a book and am in need of reference material to the Sengoku Jidai. I'm familiar with Turnbull already. Can anyone suggest some good works on the period?

I was wondering, was there a specific event or slip of information that reviled to the german public of the ongoing genocide? If not, when did most germans become aware of such events?

Stalin was born in Georgia, which makes me wonder if that affected Georgia as a soviet state?

[deleted]

It seems like when you watch movies and TV shows set in historical times, they had fabric carpeting, but the flooring itself was either stone, wood, or some other type of tile (for lack of a better term). Now a days most flooring in the US (AFAIK) is carpeted. When did the idea of a fully carpeted floor become an invention? And when did it become popular in building and designing houses?

I don't see many instances of this being asked so ill say it's not a troll question. The only answer ive really seen is just that Greece was "different". I don't see how it was more different than say Egypt though, in fact all of the cultures in the ANE were pretty distinct.

What seems to be the point of the term is how they built off each other culturally and technologically, and i don't see how Greece is exempt. I hadn't given it much thought until i heard that part of ancient Greece, the Minoans, are grouped in but not Greece overall. Why are they exempt despite having a Semitic alphabet, worshiping in many cases the same gods as their neighbors, and even including or assimilating them into their important myths to the point of naming their part of the known world after a mythical Phoenician princess?

During World War I, shortened versions of the Hotchkiss 6-pounder QF naval cannon were mounted on the first tanks. During World War II, it was common to equip tanks with modified versions of towed artillery pieces (e.g. the Panzer IV's KwK 40 was a modified PaK 40, the Tiger II's KwK 43 was a modified PaK 43) - the towed version of these pieces would doubtlessly be considered artillery, but the tank-mounted version is not. On the other hand, self-propelled artillery existed and was always considered as artillery (e.g. the ISU-122 and ISU-152, the M109, the PzH2000), again equipped with weaponry that would be considered artillery when towed, with the only difference that, here, the weapon's status as artillery was sufficient to transfer the artillery status upon the entire vehicle, which did not happen for tanks. The only technical difference seems to be that "tanks" mount cannon, while vehicles considered "artillery" mount howitzers. Is that the entire difference? What was the reasoning behind classifying combat vehicles along that criterion?

Just want to know what tactics were successfully used by non-Steppe peoples against the Mongol Hordes during the Pax-Mongolica that repeatedly held off the Mongols from completely conquering and completely devastating them.

It currently seems that you're only able to pursue a degree as an officer in the British military through institutions such as the open university. However, I frequently see military officers' biographies that state they joined, and then attended university. Is this a simple change in policy? Or are there more detailed reasons?

This came to me as a shower thought. Looking through the subreddit, I noted various discussion on the veracity and intent of The Jungle, but something else has been bugging me.

You're almost guaranteed to hear about The Jungle and the huge impact it had on both public perception and legislative policy in your high school US History or Civics course. It's odd to me, however, that there doesn't appear to be any other work in the century since that's had the same amount of impact. The only works that come to mind are perhaps the wave of fast food industry exposes we got (Fast Food Nation, Food Inc., etc.), and maybe Blackfish. As far as I'm aware, those didn't bring in the sweeping changes that The Jungle apparently singlehandedly ushered.

So the question(s): how come no single expose's ever caused as much change as The Jungle? Do we know why not? Is there simply less to expose nowadays? Do we care less?

Furthermore, I could be completely wrong about The Jungle's impact comparative to other works. In that case, corrections are welcome!

I know the germans almost reached Moscow at one point and failed and why Stalingrad was fought for so hard I don't know but ive read a book called "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor the fighting both sides showed really shows how curel and morbid urban combat was.

Woulden't a bigger city like Moscow be 10 times more difficult to take over? Something would have to be done with Moscow if Stalingrad was won sooner or later or?

• No river that russian reinforcments had to pass. Easier to surround the german army?

• Larger city, larger room for tactical defence through buildings/sewers.

• Also harder to seige and starve out? it's a huge city to surround and would take alot of manpower.

• Alot more urban combat.

For a casual like me it looks like the german eastern campagin was doomed from the start in this regard. How would they take a city like Moscow if Stalingrad turned out so ugly. I know logistics and winter was a nightmare overall but urban combat really seemed to be a big problem for germans.

What are you historians perspective of this matter?

I am aware that today's Mali occupies some of the Empire's territory (unlike Ghana and Benin) but is there much of a cultural link? Was Mali's independence from France the rebirth of the old nation or the creation of an entirely new one?