I recently read about the bengal famine of 1943, and I would like to learn more about the level of involvement that the British had in causing that and other famines during their imperial rule.

During the time of battle where infantry fought and clashed with swords, or other melee weapons, how often was it that they fought an opponent one on one? If the idea of the battle is to survive, and win, how often (or not), would a soldier kill an enemy who is occupied fighting someone else, or distracted in some other way?

if so how severe were they? how much did it get enforced?

These are my two favorite podcasters and I wanted to know if you guys felt that these podcasters are accurate in the way that they present and tell the subject matter of their podcasts. Duncan created " The history of Rome" and "Revolutions" podcasts. Carlin produces the "hard-core history" podcast.

I mean, in 1862, when McClellan got Lee's army plans, didn't he know he had Lee outnumbered more than two to one so he could just have sent 40,000 men to easily take the city while the main army unit held the Southerners off? And again around the time of Gettysburg, when it was confirmed the Confederates had gone North, how didn't that leave Richmond wide open for the taking? Washington D.C. had a ring of well-equipped and manned forts anyway, so presumably they could have protected the city in the mean time. Were there leaders who said they should go take the capital while the main Southern army group was away? It's not like the Southerners were moving to threaten their supply lines.

I'm specifically interested in Texas and the southwest but any responses are welcome

The 50k Wehrmacht troops outside of Minsk come to mind in 1944, but really I'd be interested to see how such hostile forces in large numbers could actually coordinate a cease fire. Obviously it didn't turn out well for them but were there literal white flags? Did senior officers send a communication to the red army with their intention to surrender?

I've read so much on the logistics of the battle, the preparation and the execution of all the militaries in WW2 but what exactly went on those last couple hours to actually coordinate a cease fire between huge mechanized forces that had been killing each other for years?

As I understand the current languages, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, they're something like (very) mutated off-shoots of Plattdeutsch.

Why did this language replace Old Norse? Did it happen top-down, because the aristocracy adopted a prestigious foreign language, or bottom-up? Did it happen as an evolution of Old Norse, with more and more words and grammar being replaced, or as a wholly new and distinct language supplanting the old one?

Why did it happen in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, but not on Iceland or the Faroese Islands?

I have to assume that some of the empires and kingdoms that survived for hundreds or thousands of years had military alliances. Some of THOSE surely lasted over 100 years.

If they wanted to name them after a Greek god, why not Artemis? Artemis was the god of the moon, and Apollo was the god of the sun. Is there something I was missing?

What are the best books, movies or documentaries that I should get to obtain a full notion from the origin to the fall of Rome?

[deleted]

[deleted]