aside from the conditions and terrain not being in the allies' favor at all, didn't they know exactly what was waiting for them? surely there could have been a better strategy than simply rushing the beach.

i think the death toll was way higher than it should have been. couldn't they at least have entirely secured one sector through aerial support, spec ops, or paratroopers flanking them from behind? correct me if i'm wrong but it don't see much of a strategy.. like what was the game plan here besides running across the beach and trying not to die? no skillset could prepare you for what was waiting for them/prevent you from dying so if you actually made it across the beach it was pure luck.

seems like the allies took a "numbers game" approach instead, which caused thousands of young men to die before they were even able to live a life. it's really devastating as it was pretty much a suicide mission.

I’ve recently decided to delve into Japanese history and I am looking for recommendations. I looked through the reading list and the only one I saw seems to focus more on the cultural developments. This is absolutely interesting to me but I’m looking for something that focuses more on the politics of the time. I could be wrong of course and it turns out it does talk about the politics of the time but I’d just like to be sure. Any recommendations are welcome and thanks in advance!

The dating system in the west traditionally counts the years since the supposed birth of Jesus. I understand that historians, or at least those who accept the historicity of Jesus, are somewhat uncertain on his actual birth date, placing it in a few years before 1 CE.

So given this uncertainty, is there a modern way we define years. Do we have a reference year, one event we are sure happened exactly XX years ago, in the ancient era, and so we can reliably count years since then.

To be more clear, imagine I say Jesus died in the year 33 CE. That would be a "credible" date based on the gospel (let's just assume it's credible) but suffers from the flaw that it is relative to another uncertain year. Whereas if I say Caesar died exactly 2064 years ago (ie 44 BC) I may have a more precise way of counting the years before and since. Tangentially, are dates in the ancient world, such as Mar 15 44BC, correct, or are they an estimate of the delta w.r.t. the birth of Jesus (so suffer from error on the zero).

Hope I'm clear! Thank you and happy Saturnalia!

I am nearing the end of a listen to Mike Duncan's "History of Rome" podcast and have taken an interest in the "barbarians" that Rome was dealing with over the course of its imperial era (so I guess roughly 27BC - 476 AD), and would like to learn more in a systematic way, especially about the transformations that occurred for them over the course of the Roman imperial era.

Duncan discusses certain trends with them only in passing, but the impression I get is trends of increasingly large and increasingly stable political formations, to some extent "Romanized" by the adoption of some Roman political structures and methods. One general trend I think I've picked out is of increasingly large and increasingly stable alliances for military ventures. I have little idea how much these particular observations are genuinely true--I share these impressions to convey the types of transformations I'm interested in learning more about, rather than to try to tell you I "know" these specific dynamics were real and true.

I have not read far into it yet, but for similar reasons I've picked up Chris Wickham's Framing the Early Middle Ages. I'm basically looking for something with a similar methodology, but for these peoples from 0-400 rather than his timeline of 400-800.

Any help or correction you can offer is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I've read this claim a few times, generally in pop histories/articles, and it also appears on the all-knowing, infallible Wikipedia. Supposedly, Jesus was said to haunt toilets and chamber pots as some sort of eternal punishment, and possibly could attack unsuspecting excreters. Far be it from me to distrust the fine folks at that website, but I figured I'd ask here. What can we make of the sources that describe these beliefs? Were they actually popular beliefs in some Jewish populations? If it wasn't, are the accounts some sort of satire? And if the beliefs were real and widespread, how long did they survive?

I've heard about the Greenland Viking culture disappearing due to a cooling climate making their source of sustenance no longer viable, while the Inuit were able to keep hunting and fishing like they had before.

Did the Vikings simply die out and/or leave, or did a significant number of them join the Inuit?

I know that there are exceptions to this (My GF had elementary school that was K-6 for instance), but the three groups of grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, at least in the United States, seems to be by far the accepted standard anywhere I've been.

How did this differentiation come to be and for what reasons, and how did it manage to take hold so nearly universally compared to alternative breakdowns that were considered?

Also, Christmas in Japan is more like a Valentine's Day-style couples' holiday. Why is that?

I am trying to do some research on my family and wanted to learn how they would've traveled from Missouri to Texas during this time. I can't seem to find any sources on just traveling, let alone from Missouri to Texas. Does anyone knows of any good sources on this topic?

Every time we've learned about WW in school Switzerland was only mentioned with "They were neutral" and then moved on to another country.

I'm wondering why was their neutrality respected? It had borders with Germany, Austria & Italy, making it mostly surrounded by nazi countries, and, if I'm not mistaken, had German residents just like e.g. Czechoslovakia - it only seems strategic they would get invaded.

So what made the difference and decision to not invade them, unlike e.g. the already mentioned Czechoslovakia?

Additionally, were there any plans to invade them at further stage, or not at all, and if so, why not?

I’m an amateur historian who is particularly interested in historical costuming. I’ve also done some reenacting.

I was at a museum recently and was looking at some Norse shoes from about 800 and realized that all of my re-enacting shoes have modern soles and I also have to put the best and thickest inserts in there to save my back. This lead me to some questions about shoes. I hope this is the right subreddit…

From what I’ve seen historical soles are pretty much just leather. This doesn’t seem like it would provide any good traction, particularly in the mud. Is there evidence of other sole materials?

What about comfort? Is there any evidence of arch support? Or maybe evidence of back problems due to lack of arch support?

Am I wrong in thinking that historical shoes would’ve been slippery and uncomfortable and- other than for warmth- it would have been better to just go barefoot?

Obviously these answers can very wildly based on both when and where, but I’m curious generally so all answers welcome

It was the penultimate strategy in 1800. But by 1900 it was old news and obsolete. When did this change truly occur?

I’ve just noticed the carol has pretty much birds and servants through the whole carol. Why is this?

The lyrics are below

On the 12th day of Christmas My true love sent to me 12 drummers drumming Eleven pipers piping Ten lords a-leaping Nine ladies dancing Eight maids a-milking Seven swans a-swimming Six geese a-laying Five golden rings (five golden rings) Four calling birds Three French hens Two turtle-doves And a partridge in a pear tree

Hello, I am looking for more details on the Saxon fyrd system. I've got some questions if someone could answer them, that would be fantastic!

• Would the fyrd move around the country or did each region have its own? For example, when King Harold II disbanded his army on the south coast of England in 1066, did he have to raise different soldiers as he marched up north to face the Viking threat or would these have been the same soldiers as before? If he hadn't disbanded his army, would these have marched up north with him?
• How long would people serve in the fyrd for?
• How were the fyrd equipped/trained, if at all?
• Was there any payment for participation or was it a service for using a lord's land?
• Who exactly would have been called up?
• Were these simply peasant farmers called up or did they have other professions?
• What sort of numbers could be seen?
• Any general information about the fyrd would be useful - for example, did the Normans continue this system at all and when was it eventually abandoned?

I fail to see what disadvantages there are to not do it when looking at India's geographical location, economic potential, population, and many Indians are still traumatized from Western colonization making the task far easier.

I have found tons of results about wars between natives and the US (et al.) government, but I would like to read about conflicts between tribes beyond very simple descriptions. Some things I am particularly interested in: Did Native American tribes have professional soldiers? Were fortifications used? Were large scale battles fought (several thousand people)?

Thank you!