I've recently started reading a book about Roman generals and breaching into a city seemed a real problem (I'm thinking Numancia, Alesia, Cartago Nova, etc). If defenses were such a problem why didn't they destroy them with siege engines? Specially in cases where diplomacy failed several times why did they choose to starve the enemy out instead of just destroying the city from the outside?

I guess I am asking whether or not there was any sort of "century awareness" that we now seem to have in the modern age -- or is that itself a modern development?

I know there had to have been some Marines serving on naval bases or on US Navy ships, but did they play any combat operations role (significant or otherwise) in the land or air campaign in Europe or Africa? Did they have any involvement in the amphibious landings in the European/African theaters?

Was there a difference in perception (official or otherwise) between the governments and the people of Allied nations?

Resubmission because this question got some interest but no answers last time:

While private automobile ownership was more difficult in the Soviet Union, and my understanding is that the question of car ownership was a bit of a tricky one for the Soviet leadership, I find it hard to imagine that nobody in the USSR was racing and modifying cars. Were there underground racing scenes? Black markets for western performance parts? Officially-sanctioned races?

For example, the British in North America simply pushed back native Americans farther and farther from the east coast, while the Spanish destroyed the Aztec empire and enslaved the people. Why the difference?

From my basic understandings, the Soviets occupied a good part of Austria, including Vienna,but the Allies managed to also grab a chunk of it.

Why did it become a capitalist republic, then? Soviets puppeted the rest of the occupied countries, why give Austria away like that?

Money has been a staple of the human life for as far back as my knowledge of history extends. Do we know why which ever civilization first introduced a formal currency did so? I know that trading was probably the first basis of what currency was.

Before the exchange tomatoes, beans, tobacco, potatoes didn't exist in Europe....

Before the exchange cows, pigs, horses, grains, coffee didn't exist in the Americas.

We're there any sort of close species in either place or was it a complete absence?

According to Wikipedia's List of Scottish Clans", several coats of arms have the faces or bodies of men of color featured prominently (Clan Borthwick, Clan MacLellan). I was just curious why a Scottish clan would use such a symbol to identify themselves.

Hi and hello friends of history. I recently became very interested in Napoleonic History. I listened to the entire Napoleon Bonaparte 101 podcast and I'm left with some mixed feelings about the guy. I bought a biography about him as well but I am not far into yet. When you listen to the podcast the historians telling the story of Napoleon make him out as a hero and great leader in French history. But most common people see him as more of a tyrant almost equal to Hitler. I don't fully understand this especially since he mostly fought as a general pushing for French Revolution governments. I am hoping somebody can help me see better why he is so hated.

I've heard a few times that the tremendous losses of young men exacerbated France's stagnant population (compared to Germany's growing population), and that as a result, the French just hadn't produced enough young men between 1918 and 1940 to mobilize the same size army that they had in 1914. Is there any truth to this?

Was there a particular segment of the population or locale that were known to be way more cooperative than necessary? Who did the resistance consider the gravest violators?

A year or two ago (or more -- time flies), I stumbled across a web site showing (I think) common routes (of communication and post, I think, but might have been trade) in the ancient Roman world. It was a live web site in that you could pick an origin point and the map would update to show where you could go in a day, three days, two weeks, two months, etc. Does that sound familiar to anyone? I can't seem to just Google it up. I know this isn't really a question ABOUT history, but I'm guessing there are enough interested people here that somebody might just know (as opposed to Quora or StackOverflow or HackerNews).

Hello historians,

This afternoon I read up on the fall of srebrenica, but from what I've read on wikipedia I'm left with some questions:

1. Fearful Bosnians had gathered in srebrenica, seeking refuge from the Serbian army. This lead to big food shortages, as srebrenica was apparently one of very few 'safe' havens. Eventually several raiding parties were launched by Bosnian civilians, which ended in numerous brutal incidents in the surrounding Serbian villages. Why did tensions rise so high that this could be allowed to happen? Could it have been prevented?

2. How many UN soldiers were there to defend srebrenica? How could the Serbian army overpower them so completely? I cant find the exact numbers on either side.

3. Was there any proof of previous incidents that involved ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian war?

I was in Philadelphia earlier this year and learned about fighting in the streets between these two groups. How high was the death toll as a result of this fighting? How long did it last? Did any loyalists leave to fight for the British in a formal capacity?

Honestly any information about this is welcome, interested in reading more about it.

Our guide also told us about injured separatists being brought into Independence Hall, but there was concern that they would get blood on the documents so they had to climb the stairs to the second level where many of them died. Is this accurate?

[deleted]

[deleted]