Additionally, was it covered up at all by the government or was everything public?

To my understanding a lot of it had to do with poor radio communication, being on the defensive, the Germans attacking first and disease, but i'd love to hear and in-depth answer to why and how the Soviets suffered such a loss and how exactly they won.

Paging /u/georgy_k_zhukov basicaly.

It's a condensed title but I'm curious about the differences and/or similarities between activism during the early Civil Rights Movement and modern day movements like Black Lives Matter.

EDIT: Forgot a word in the title. Sorry about that.

Why were the vikings less evolved than the people they raided? In History's Vikings Rollo states that the Nortumbrian's army has superior steel swords.

And aside from that, their people, Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia and Paris, seem more evolved that Ragnar's people. Is this accurate? If so, why was this? Did the Vikings evolve "slower" because they had other worries such as surviving harsh winters? Or was this a result of cultural difference?

Cheers!

I was discussing wines association with the aristocracy with my wife, which lead to it's association with classical antiquity but then I remembered that Lucius Verinus and Pullo were always drinking wine despite being relatively poor.

Was wine the main available drink? Or hippocras? Did Rome at the time not produce beer or other cheaper drinks, or was wine just cheaper and easier to make at the time.

Thanks in advance.

I've been trying to formulate this question for awhile, but since it's Air and Space week I felt compelled to ask now!

Prior to the rise of the ICBM as the main instrument of a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, the means by which the Soviet Union would presumably have delivered nuclear weapons to the continental United States was strategic bomber aircraft. Not only was this the underlying logic for the civil defense programs of the 1950’s, but it drove a significant number of defense/military decisions, programs and technologies. To counter this perceived threat, the United States had developed and put in place, by the late 1950’s, multiple early warning radar systems (most importantly the DEW Line in the arctic), nuclear-tipped surface-to-air missiles, supersonic interceptor aircraft armed with nuclear air-to-air rockets, and the SAGE system to coordinate a national response.

The Soviets didn’t detonate their first nuclear weapon until 1949 and didn’t conduct their first air-drop test until 1951. Even if the ability to air-deliver weapons in large numbers occurred soon after (which seems unlikely), the only delivery vehicle immediately available was the Tu-4 – a piston-engined, reverse-engineered copy of the B-29. If the Soviets, in a hypothetical attack, managed reliable refueling operations in the far northern regions of the arctic (which would be difficult, at best), a Tu-4 on a one-way mission still wouldn’t have the range to reach most of the US. Subsequent jet-powered bombers (the Tu-16 and Myasishchev M-4) were similarly range-limited.

Only with the introduction of the iconic Tu-95 in 1956 did the Soviets possess an aircraft with significant range to take off from the Soviet Union and deliver nuclear weapons across the continental US. But by this point, Soviet air crews were facing the defenses I noted above. Add to that, presumably it would take at least a few years (so, into 1958 or even 1959) before Soviet aviation would have had enough aircraft and trained air crews so as to make a mass Tu-95 attack possible.

To me, it seems improbable that, come the late 1950’s, Soviet planners would dedicate a large number of irreplaceable aircraft, aircrews and nuclear weapons to suicidal missions likely doomed for failure somewhere over Canada, particularly when Europe offered so many closer-range and less-defended targets.

So: was the Soviet strategic nuclear bomber threat ever actually a threat?

My understanding is that this could just be propaganda Antony was spreading to smear Octavian. I've heard Octavian was very much against homosexuality as he tried to preserve "family values".

Thanks for any and all answers!

I posted on this about a year ago and got several upvotes but no responses so I am trying again.

I have read that the statue of the principal Babylonian god Marduk was stolen from the city on more than one occasion by conquering forces. The statue would be taken back to the conquerer's capital much to chagrin of the Babylonians who would be losing the protection of the god. The statue would sometimes be restored to Babylon only to be stolen again in the next sacking. I know it was taken to Elam and Assur in this manner. Was it taken to other cities? Does anyone have a timeline on the travels of the statue? Does anyone know what became of it? Does it still exist?

Why is it a recurring theme that most major elections are held on Tuesdays? Most of the primaries were held on Tuesdays. As well as the general election. Why did they choose Tuesday instead of a day of the weekend when more people had time off to vote?

What kind of people came to be in this "occupation" and how would they get there? How were they viewed by their coworkers or society? What typically happened to them? I read once, regarding KGB interrogators specifically, that torturers usually go insane; is this true?

Why was this chosen as this unit's symbol? I just can't wrap my head around it. It's like, wow, you had the balls to give your genocidal brigades the one symbol that stands for death above all others? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

In History, we learn Gandhi hoped and worked for a united India. However, this fails as Pakistan does not join India in unity. What about the other three countries that were a part of the British colony?

I don't mean the techniques I mean were they carried by dedicated longswordsmen or something? If yes what was their main purpose?

I was wondering why the Empire had such a difficulty raising troops even though it had at its disposal a much larger pool of available men. For instance, I read Adrian Goldsworthy's Augustus a few months ago, and I remember him describing a revolt in Illyria, in which Augustus had a hard time filling his legions to full strength due to lack of manpower, and if I recall correctly, he resorted to freeing slaves to fill the ranks.

Another interesting thing is that during the civil war, the total legions of the triumvirs numbered over 60. And this seems to have been the amount of legions in service during the days of Caesar as well. Yet once Augustus was the undisputed ruler of Rome, he cut the amount of legions down to 28, and for the rest of the Empire, this was usually the amount of active legions.

A perfect example of this happening was during the 3rd century B.C. when Rome suffered some crushing defeats, like when Hannibal slaughtered 70,000 Romans in a single battle, and yet they simply raised a new army like nothing had happened at all, even though they only recruited from rich citizens who could afford to buy their equipment. I simply don't understand how the Empire only had about half the amount of active legions and more available men, yet had more problems with manpower.

On this subreddit the rules state that the line between current events and history is drawn at 20 years. Is this distinction commonly accepted in the formal study of history? What factors are taken into account when deciding what is "too recent" for historical study?

I came across mention of the Banana, and it was really my first thought. Eve eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is so often portrayed as having a sexual awakening component, I couldn't help but feel that a banana made much more sense than an apple since, well, it is so damn phallic.

So did bananas have a sexual connotation from their shape at that time?

Or am I reading to much into this, and the choice of a banana was made simply because it was a fruit that was familiar to people in the region?

Today I use GPS navigation when I want to get somewhere and Google Earth to plan my garden, but neither positioning nor imaging were conceived as consumer-level products. When did it become conceivable that that might happen in the future and how was it envisioned?

Okay, so my friend and I are having a discussion and he is under the impression that Jesus (the man who can be reasonably assumed to have existed) never actually claimed to be the son of god personally, and that was just written in later by Saul/Paul. Are there any non-biblical sources that speak to this issue one way or another?

Disclaimer, I did look through your archived religion posts, and while the ones on Jesus's actual existence were helpful, they did not really answer this particular question

I was looking through a list of noble office holders on wikipedia (which I infuriatingly cannot find) where I found a number of people with titles like "The Black", "The Great", or "The Red", and I haven't been able to find any explanation for them.

My question is, where did such titles come from? Were they nicknames which became popular, were they official titles, or something added by historians?