Is there a historical consensus to how skilled Augustus / Octavian was in military affairs? From what little reading I've done, it's seemed like battles won during the Second Triumvirate were more because of Antony and Octavian. Was he more skilled politically than militarily? Does he come anywhere close to the skill of his (adopted) father?

I've seen this circulating around in the net but can't find source.

If this weren't true, when/where did the rumor come up?

Were bronze swords ever reusable through many battles, and were they generally constructed (within organized militaries) to last for a full campaign?

So today we brush our teeth (some people floss even though it has no benefit) and in the 19th century they would knock you out with primitive anesthetics and yank out the tooth, however what did they do in the Roman era? Did they ever develop a way to clean their teeth or did they let it be? Thanks in advance!

I am sorry if thas has been asked before, my search has been fruitless.

I can't wrap my mind around the commander's rationale of sending troops into certain death over, and over, and over again. From what I understand about the war, is that as soon as the first encounters happened between Germans and Belgians, it became painfully clear that directly assaulting fortified positions was no longer a real option. Did they keep on thinking that the battle is won by whoever can throw more shells and ressources on someone?

I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but it just doesn't make sense to me: repeatedly, countless lives are literally wiped out without entailing drastic changes in strategy/tactics.

I would really appreciate to be enlightened on this.

Because I know that the 49th parallel was decided as the boundary between Canada and the United States for Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Everything east of that, the border doesn't look nearly as smooth. So everything north of this line, Canada gets. Everything south goes to the United States.

That's cool, but also consider that Vancouver, BC today is one of Canada's most important cities along with Toronto and Montreal. Vancouver also happens to lie just barely north of the 49th parallel. It is strategically located on a peninsula that juts westward into the Pacific Ocean. This makes it an ideal center for trading with the United States and various Asian countries.

Everything in Canada east of Vancouver and west of Ontario is just landlocked land, for the most part. This geographically advantageous peninsula just happened to be a few miles above the 49th parallel north. So does that mean Canada simply got lucky with this piece of land? Or did Canada actually specifically choose the 49th so they could cede as much land as possible to the United States without losing where Vancouver would be?

I was taught that there were a small group of coordinated people who were able to get Prohibition enacted in the US. Is this correct? Did they use moral shaming (accusing people of being immoral for not agreeing with their position) as a tactic to get it passed?

I have a feeling it is more complicated than that, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

When it was BC and AD as a kid I was taught it had something to do with Jesus, but obviously having grown up and the terminology changing I was hoping I could learn the real reason.

I just finished Anna Funder's Stasiland and at one point it seems to suggest that people considered East Berlin safer because of a Stasi and their surveillance program. (People very easy to find, track and catch etc.)

Is there any evidence of this? Where the Stasi ever involved in handling regular crime?

Like the title says. Why were Islam and Christianity so effective at convincing Europeans and Asians to abandon their pagan beliefs that had been held deeply for generations?

So I have no real background in history (I guess that’s why I’m here). What little I "know" is from here and there, and its been ages since I even remember coming across that stuff. So I just want to apologise in advance if I'm just talking out of my ass. Feel free to just redirect me to a basic wiki/post on Sulla or something.

I know about Sulla and his proscriptions, his failed reforms, the unpredictable terror he was known for inspiring (brings to mind the French Revolution’s Terror), his strengthening of a small subset of the senatorial class, his hypocrisy, etc. He seems to have earned his infamy.

So, recently I was talking to a friend who grew up in the USA. We started talking about the ideals that the USA was founded on and the role of the president as it expanded. We eventually came to the topic of George Washington and the comparisons between him and Cincinnatus. From what I can tell, the Cincinnatus that people seem to know of and is used in this comparison is largely the farmer-dictator who gave up ultimate power in favour of The Republic. But I was wondering if that's what made him so famous, what about Sulla?

So based on my limited exposure to Roman history, I never considered Cincinnatus all too great. He was just another dictator in a line of dictators which had existed before him and would continue for some time. Admittedly, he did give up his dictatorships before his terms were up, when the causa ceased to be relevant. Each dictator, to the best of my memory, obeyed the causa and/or term limits set by the senate. They would rise to the occasion, and then retire to regular political life or to their home in the country. The law and the very notion of “The Republic” still seemed to have some weight to it. The idea seemed to still be alive and respected. Which is to say, the culture was such that it was easy for Cincinnatus to follow the path his predecessors had already tread. But by the time of Sulla it was no longer the same Republic or the same culture, bribery and populism seem far more explicit and the Senate now found it's historical and constitutional power threatened by the mobs, etc. etc. even Sulla's most articulate enemy, Cicero found much to say about the state of the Republic (IIRC). Furthermore, the office of dictator had been empty for, IIRC, like 4 generations. With this limited understanding of Roman history, it seems rather astounding to me that Sulla, isn’t to some degree, praised/known for putting aside his dictatorial powers, which were indefinite in both scope and duration, and retiring to his farm (see idyllic farmer-dictator concept mentioned in previous paragraph). Admittedly, it seems he still held real power even after he stopped being the dictator.

But yeah, why isn’t Sulla remembered for surrendering his power when he could have easily held onto power even longer? Shouldn't this be something that's equally famous, as Cincinnatus giving up his dictatorship when the causa was satisfied?

[deleted]

I'm also attempting to research him (just on a lark, not for a book or school report or anything, I'm just a housewife) so any recommendations on accurate biographies or other sources of information would be welcome.

Did castles play a role that was advantageous to war in the 19th and 20th century. Could a castle play a defensive role against modern equipment?

I've heard multiple times before that the Third Reich had technology that was very ahead of its time, so much in fact that after the war, Operation Paperclip was devised to obtain as many Nazi scientists as possible.

Is there any specific reason why the Third Reich was relatively advanced in these areas?

Was it purely because of guns, or was the reason more complicated?

I'm a history teacher and trying to compile a comprehensive list for my kids. The problem is, when I go to do the research, I find things like "liberal ideals" or "growth of state power". Instead, I'm looking for effects like pants or the metric system--things that average teens would actually be feeling the effects of either in their daily lives (ie. pants for fashion) or in classes (metric system). Thank you all for helping me make a stronger history lesson for my kids!

[deleted]