[deleted]

My great grandfather fought in both world wars under the seaforth highlanders and then went on to be the gameskeeper at Balmoral Castle, What is the best way to research information about him and find out more about his past?

Not sure if this is the appropriate subreddit for this kind of question but I can't find much information on the internet. Any one who may have seen any of the following docs, any information you can give on the quality:

• Roman Vice
• In Search of History:

1. Roman Roads: Paths to Empire
2. Rome's Lost Harbour
3. Rome's Eternal Wonders
4. Rome's Glorious Cities

• Sex in the Ancient World: Pompeii
• Ancient Mysteries: Pompeii: Buried Alive
• Criminal History: Ancient Rome
• Rome: The Enduring Legacy

BONUS QUESTION: It Also came with a boxset on Ancient Greece "Ancient Greece: Gods and Battles", which I'm not as interested in but still look alright, so I may as well ask the same questions. How accurate are the following:

• Gods and Goddesses
• In Search of History

1. The Greek Gods
2. Oracle At Delphi

• Last Stand of the 300
• Decisive Battles:

1. Marathon
2. Thermopylae

• Troy: The Passion of Helen
• Battles BC:

1. Judgement Day at Marathon
2. Alexander: Lord of War

Maybe South Africa actually did break with the Empire earlier, but I'm just interested in finding out what happened to these larger colonies between the two world wars that gave the the right to self governance, while the Kings African Rifles still existed. Sources seem to say that Canada became a country in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907 and South Africa in 1910.

Bonus question: Did Guyana, Belize and the British West Indies islands play an active part in the World Wars?

Did the British have any knowledge of the development of the A-bomb? What about the Soviets? Where there any plans in the event the war ended before the bomb could be used?

According to Wikipedia, the left hand and the left side had a positive connotation in early Roman times. apparently the negative view on left handedness stemmed from the Greeks, which the Romans adopted. Anyone got any more info on this?

[deleted]

I'm really quite confused about this whole area of history, and even after reading my understanding is still quite muddled. I was hoping my questions could be cleared up. Please stop in any of my questions as soon as I get the premise wrong and correct that instead of answering the question.

Around the year 700 The Saxons, as I understand it, inhabited northern Germany before traveling to current day England. My current understanding of the Angles is similar, origination from near the same area (further north/east then the Saxons?) who then also colonized England. The Jutes, a group that I'll come back to later, were more north still up in current day Denmark.

First, is our distinction between the Saxons and Angles purely to reflect the politics of the time (simply being different nations)? or are our reasons for separating them in history based more in cultural or ethnic reasons? Were they different 'peoples' merely because they identified as different nations, or did they have importantly different origins before their time near each other in northern Germany? Whatever the reason for this distinction, why do we seem to then remove this distinction by calling them the collective term of 'Anglo-Saxon' some time down the line?

Second, were there any native people when the Angles and the Saxons colonized England? Did they 'usurp' any other cultures or peoples, or did they find empty land on their arrival? If there were people before them what can you tell me about them? Are they names I'd recognize?

Third, this is a question regarding a later period often called (for good reason) the 'viking age'. Did the vikings who raided England from around this time come from Denmark? In such a case, where they related or descended from the Jute's who inhabited the area of Denmark before the Saxons and Angles left to England? If so, that leads me to a few more questions:

Fourth, How were the Jute's related to the Saxons and Angles? Why, if for any particular reason, did they not colonize England? (assuming they didn't).

And fifth, did either the English people who were being raided, or the Vikings doing the raiding realize that they were from related groups? Did the people of either culture understand this (relatively) recent relationship? What did they 'think' of each other, either because of or despite this common history? Did they simply have no idea/not care?

Sorry for such a rambley question, people ask for clarification wherever it might help you answer my question.

Was it faster than earlier methods?

If the concept of shell shock was widely known back then, why did the high command of these armies still view that as cowardice? And why did they execute those who were convicted of cowardice if they knew the sentenced man was probably afflicted from shell shock?

Very recently I asked on /r/history about how good or bad the German Empire was and it quickly derailed into a heated discussion about Germanys involvement in WW1 because of my seemingly unpopular opinion that the German Empire has huge blame for starting WW1.

Now, nearly everybody in that thread was against me and said that Germany didn't want a war or that the French and Russians are as much to blame for it as Germany.

Hence I come here to get clarification. Was I wrong all the time about this?

Do note that I am german so my opinion has nothing to do with me hating the country.

Or did Pliny the Elder exaggerate the number?

Or was the role of slaves in their slavery generally one of acquiescence?

Were the tunes "official" military tunes or more like passed down sea shanties? The movies in question seem to show mostly British and American troops engaging in organized whistling, but did German and Russian troops also whistle?