Of course, the Roman Catholic Church would claim to be orthodox, while the Orthodox Church describes itself as a Catholic and Apostolic church. But generally speaking, "Catholic" is used to refer to the Church led by the Pope, while "Orthodox" is used to refer to the Churches led by the various Patriarchs.

But I mean, at what point did these words begin to be used to generally identify the Western and Eastern Churches? At what point would you have someone arguing "Our Catholic Church is right and the Orthodox Church is wrong", and this being something people could understand? Was it immediately after the Great Schism, or much later? Or earlier?

With the EU referendum coming up i've been seeing this statment about Charles De Gaulle being thrown about a lot and It strikes me as a bit odd, espically when the UK provided him asylum from his occupied country and helped take it back from the Nazi's

Is there more to his reasoning? Or did he just not trust the UK?

What's your opinion of making high res scans of books and art, or 3D scans of cave paintings and sculptures?

Do you think this should become the "industry" standard so that if something happens to the original we have these back ups?

They were certainly progressive for their time, was that acknowledged by Soviet historians, or was the official view of them just another oppressor?

According to Wikpedia, during the preparation for "Unternehmen Barbarossa", Wermacht headquarter and communication officers got special training in order to pass on some orders (comissary orders, coordination with the SS in murdering jews) only in oral form and to not leave a paper trail behind.

Obviously they themselves were convinced that they were necessary as did many/most soldiers who did the actual killings.

So what sense does this secrecy made, when they also expected to win the war? Was it because of the homefront or in preparation for the "unlikely" event of germany loosing?

I can see how one might about conveniently rationalizing slavery in a world where you were born part of the upper caste, and slaves are said to be part of a lowborn caste that has always existed and will always exist.

But how did Ancient Greeks in particular, or Roman citizens if applicable, reconcile the institution of slavery and the idea of a slave as "living tools", with the fact that capture by a rival city might mean one's own enslavement?

Did it create any sort of moral dilemma, controversy or at least some sense of unease among citizens? Did some thinkers recommend less harsh treatment toward slaves who were born free? Was there empathy for them?

I remember reading an article, and a few scarce, unverifiable resources online talking about how balding romans would paint hair on their head to cover up their baldness. I even read that the Roman satirist Martial would make fun of guys who did this.

Is this true? What did it look like?

Please provide sources if possible

I know this isn't your typical question, but it just something i've been curious about personally.

Hey guys i am currently in the process of doing a short story based in the ancient world and i want to know what it (the ancient world) was like in the Pre Roman republic days what kind of civilisations where there what kind of sociatle structure would they have and so forth . the main culture i am focusing on in my story are the Alan nomads (proto Iranians)

Popular depictions of ancient Rome and Greece show games of chance (dice-throwing, sports betting) and physical sports like wrestling and footraces and such. But was there any game of skill or strategy that occupied the cultural place of chess or Go or even Settlers of Catan?

I'm asking because I'm currently writing a fictional short story based on the Somme offensive.

What I really want to know is the progress that the French Sixth Army achieved during the first day.

When did the French offensive begin on the first of July?

Was everything as flawless as Wikipedia and other sources claim?

I also heard that most German positions on the Southern Flank had been incapacitated by the seven day bombardment. Did the German division in the sector offer any meaningful resistance or was it a walk in the park?

Did the soldiers have any problems getting across no man's land? Was there at any point during the attack in which the French soldiers were seriously pinned down by machine gun fire and artillery?

In ratio to the amount of men they sent in the first wave, Did the French suffer heavy casualties?

After capturing the first line, when did they begin their assault on the second? Did the Germans at any point retreat to more defensible positions or were the Germans overrun in the whole sector, trying to hold the line?

Lastly, Wikipedia states that even gas shells were used during the preparatory bombardment. Does any gas shell expert here know what those shells could've contained? How long did gas linger on the battlefield and how much of it was needed to kill you? Could you smell faint traces and be fine?

Sorry for the long list of questions. Most of the websites I have visited glossed over the role of the French during the first day of the offensive. I hope someone can answer them.

edit: Last damned question, what would going over the top have looked like? Would you be seeing a mass of of men or only a couple here and there as they tried to get across? Would they spill into the enemy trench in little separated groups, or would they stick together with whoever was leading them? What was the smallest unit in the French army?

Like in the movie The Mummy. If so why?

This may be more of a mind exercise on exploring decolonialism as a means of exploring early American history but also something to think about early American history. Can you look at the Early United States in terms of decolonialism? There is an effort to change towards American culture over British/English (Webster's spelling reforms), and a push toward the cult of republican motherhood. (I don't know enough about early American history to say more).

Is it possible to view Early American History in a Decolonial framework or am I just losing my mind?

Followup question : Would either be used in pitched battles as shown in Gladiator?

Sorry if this question does not fit the guidelines. I don't reddit very often. I realize this is a big question.

It seems to me like a military officer basically started a war with a neighboring country on his own initiative, and the government just went along with it. Is this assessment correct? If so, why did the Japanese Government tolerate such a blatant violation of its own command?

[deleted]