In school you're always taught that the Romans never settled there and built Hadrians wall, but recently i've discovered that this is untrue with settlements North of Dundee and Perth. So my question's are:

What were the settlements like?

Were these Pre- or Post- wall?

To what extent were the indigenous population of Scotland controlled by Rome?

many thanks

Do we have any record of Legionaries based in Scotland reflecting on this?

I remember reading an article a few months back where it was explained that Europe was not a powder keg before WWI, as I have thought (and been taught) for a long time. I cannot remember the exact details of the article, but it basically stated that before every (or nearly every) regional war there would be patterns in countries' economies. It stated that those patterns were not present before WWI and thus it is an indication that countries thought that any disputes that were going on would pass given enough time.

I guess what I'm asking is, can a case be made, based on those economic patterns (assuming they exist and I'm not just imagining things), that Europe was not on the brink of war and that if the Archduke weren't murderer, the Great War may not have happened?

Note that I don't want to start a dispute about whether or not the war would have happened under different circumstances. Just want to find out whether Europe's economy may be an indication that things may have went a different way.

Also, if you have any idea what article I am referring to, I would appreciate it if you posted a link or told me where to find it.

I would assume marble is more expensive than most alternatives.

I understand that medieval combat was basically men with swords running at each other, WW1 combat was basically men in trenches, but what was WW2 combat like? The only exposure I have to the subject is from WW2 films, which usually show a group of 10 guys with machine guns running around the German countryside until they find opponents, and then using whatever cover they could find and engaging the enemy. Is this an accurate representation of the average combat? It seems like an army of tens of thousands wouldn't just split up in groups of 10 and run around aimlessly.

[deleted]

What benefits were the European countries having from imperialisation that US didn't consider worth enough to go and capture other countries in late 1800s and early 1900s?

I've seen plenty of reproductions from medieval times mostly, that depict medieval soldiers with heavily armoured breastplate but no leg armour and little to no arm armour.

How common was that? And why did they do it?

It'ss very common to hear about how the Germans had the best tech in World War II. Be it their Panther and Tiger tanks or the Focke-Wulf fighter. Though as far as I know the Allied Sherman Firefly was able to defeat both the Panther and the Tiger, was easier to manufacture, and didn't suffer from regular breakdowns. The Spitfire Mk IX was a match for the Focke-Wulf as well. So where does this idea of German technical superiority come from?

It seems to me that MacArthur is more often castigated than not for his mishandling of the defense of the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War, unimpressive management of the New Guinea Campaign, inability to get along with the Navy, and for his obsessive focus on the liberation of the Philippines, not to mention a variety of poor leadership habits, including:

• Playing favorites and appointing officers of questionable quality to important command positions.

• Disregard of military intelligence that disagreed with his preconceived notions (invasion of Luzon).

• Willingness to sacrifice the lives of his own troops for public relations objectives (i.e. forbidding artillery and air bombardment during the initial stages of the Battle of Manila)

• Inability to maintain popularity among his troops due to a reputation for glory-seeking

• Borderline insubordination (contradicting the agenda of his own president in Korea).

My question is... there has to be a reason why he was trusted with such crucial military operations, right? He had even been tipped for supreme command of the planned invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Surely a man who rose over the course of the war to wield such power must have had some strengths that justified his appointments?

So... did MacArthur have any strong qualities? Logistics, perhaps? Organization? I'm genuinely curious!

In India, there's a large proportion of vegetarians, and I believe this is often attached to religion. How did this start? E.g. was it more ethics towards animals, or fear of tainted meat, or religious purity, or something else?

That's the only example I know of, but if there are/were other similar cultures, I'd love to hear how they started – I'm interested in the general question, not India specifically.

In the 5th century, Roman Africa was conquered by Vandal invaders, and despite attempts by the Romans to recapture it, it remained Vandal until the 6th century and occupied by Muslim conquerors a century after that. The Vandals often get a rap for being savage and uninterested in culture and civilization, but this doesn't seem like a particularly nuanced depiction, and I assume it's not necessarily contemporary. So what was the culture of Vandal North Africa like? Was it culturally Germanic or Roman, or something else?

Was it only because of power vacuums? Like after they defeated the Spanish armada they were the only ones left. Same thing with Napoleon when he destroyed the other European navies but he himself was defeated at Trafalgar and once again the English are the only ones left.

I'm woefully ignorant about the Haitian Revolution. I'm interested in the factors leading up to the revolution, how the movement progressed, and what made the revolt successful. I'm also interested in how the revolt influenced slavery throughout the Atlantic World. Finally, any recommended reading material would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!