Octavian rose to power after Caesar's death, so it seems, in retrospect, that Caesar must have intended him to be his successor. But Caesar was very close with Brutus as well, and Brutus was of a leadership age, while Octavion was still young. Was Brutus seen as next in line? Might he have entered that role if he hadn't decided to side with Cassius and murder Caesar?

How come the term "fascists" became associated with German Nazis in Soviet historiography and popular culture? The most common use is "немецко-фашистские захватчики" I guess, it's in the memoirs, fiction books, movies, newsreels, everywhere. As far as I know Italy didn't have any prior beef with USSR, wasn't a major player in Spanish Civil War and didn't participate in any major operations against Red Army. How did Nazis became Fascists?

And to what extent can the Hakka's historical position within their broader ecumene be compared to other minority groups worldwide - most especially European Jews? Both are groups who have been severely persecuted over history, but nonetheless have played a disproportionate role in politics, business, and thought, both within Europe/China and in their respective diasporas?

I grew up watching all manner of westerns. Yes, I know they are not real. Still loved them. I just watched the Power of the Dog. There was an African American cowboy in the movie. Was this common? If so, was there systemic prejudice, that was common after the civil war, towards them?

In the English translation of "Second-hand time", the word "salami" appears numerous times; as if the whole of Soviet Russia was obsessed with salami.

Was salami such an important part of food culture in Soviet Russia, and was there a link between the quality of salami and your social class?

I understand that Hamadani was born into a Jewish family and later converted to Islam and that he was born under Mongol rule. May this have anything to do with it? Or is it more simple, like a misunderstanding of how aniconism works in Islam?

Edit: spelling

He is the only person (other than Washington, who received it 200 years later) to be given the rank of “General of the Armies”.

There were several attempts to confer it on World War II generals but they were all rejected out of deference to Pershing.

Why was Pershing such a big deal? While I don’t mean to in any way denigrate the contribution of American forces during World War I, this was a much smaller conflict (lasting less than a year) for Americans than events like the such as the Civil War or World War II.

Why did Pershing get this unique accolade when Grant, Sherman, Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley, etc didn’t?

In the film Lore (2012), the wife of a Nazi officer packs her bags and goes off to a 'camp' to avoid prison and leaves her children behind. Was it commonplace for former Nazi officers to be arrested? If so, who was it that arrested them? Was there this other alternative of a camp like the mother in this film tells her children?

Thank you so much for your insights!

Idly read the wiki of The Battle of Hattin today (after rewatching the Kingdom of Heaven lol). It said there about 200 knights and more soldiers were sold into slavery after the battle (if they weren’t executed that is).

What was their life like after being turned into slaves? Did they stay slaves for very long? Where were they used?

And I imagine these people, trained in combat and were noblemen, caused all sorts of problems for their employers. They didn’t just turn into meek, timid servants did they? I see this defeated army converted to slaves thing both in film and stories but those never follow up to what their lives turned into.

I mean, before the Greek idea of a three-way split between Africa, Asia and Europe became widespread, did people in other parts of the world have other ways of dividing the world into major geographical regions?

You could imagine that something from Christianity, for example, would have replaced those names through the years.

So, something that I often hear mentioned is that those that lived within Egypt during its ancient era were a different ethnic group or race than what's associated with there today. Perhaps this is untrue or contested but I've seen it from some reliable sources and in a few history books so I have the impression it's accepted.

Whenever I have seen it discussed it's often followed by comments implying that it's not known what those people actually looked like and that they don't exist today. And I'm just wondering if there is an answer to why. I am aware that after the whole Alexander the Great thing the Egyptian royal family were Greek immigrants/Invaders descended from Ptolemy rather than Egyptians but that doesn't just snap away all the other people living there. What exactly happened to them?

I'm doing some writing having it take place in the first century AD Vietnam before the Trung sisters' rebellion. I'm guessing it was poor and rural with the Han being more of occupiers of the area then the people of the area. But I'm wondering if there's any actual sources that talk about life from that era.

Hey there r/AskHistorians, I am currently preparing a presentation/lecture on the Russian Revolution and am looking for general literature recommendations. Help would be greatly appreciated!

More specifically I am thinking about the "History of the Russian Revolution" by Leon Trotsky. How would you rate this work in terms of neutrality, I am cautious because he was obviously not only one of the main participants but also heavily invested in one side of the conflict. But his perspective would of course be very interesting to take a look at, although not "I am going to read 1000 pages interesting :D".

I hope this is the right place for this! Though if I should head to askscience, let me know.

I know that the eye dropper was invented by Louis Pasteur, and that he was born in 1822, but surely there would be a need before that to add “a drop” of something to something else? I thought, aha, syringe! But that was invented in 1853.

This is for a very minor detail in a story that takes place in the Elizabethan Era, but I cannot seem to let it go. So curious!

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Was it all just a comedic contrivance? Or were personal washers/dryers truly rare in 1990s Manhattan?

Edit: Of course, New York apartments are small, and size is a limiting factor. But I live in Tokyo, where owning at least your own washer is not a rarity. What's behind the difference?