Somewhere I heard that, before WWI, military bureaucrats objected to spending on submarines. They thought subs would be useless in warfare because "there's nowhere to keep the survivors". Any documentation this is true? It "smells" wrong to me.

Did a significant amount of the soldiers speak french? Did the french population speak english?

As far as I have understood, being multilingual was not as widespread during WW2 as it is today, yet there are often pictures popping up from WW2 where US soldiers communicate with the french natives, and I am wondering how easily this happened.

Same question goes for German, Dutch and so on as well... Basically any non-english language.

For example did they use small logs to act as a barbell etc.

I was thinking, how long would it take to build a typical roman wall like the ones we find in the UK. I realize that it depends on how long it is. But was there usually more troops in the area when the building was done ? How did it work exactly ? Where was the material acquired ?

Thanks!

I'm really confused about the Byzantine Empire, and I must confess that I'm not really knowledged about it. I believe that I have often read that it is sometimes an exageration to call the Eastern Roman Empire the "Byzantines", as they refered to themselves as Romans, but I see the word used quite a lot, by historians as well.

In this spirit : at which point (in history) is it acceptable, if it does indeed make a difference, to refer to them as the Byzantines ? And of course, why ?

Furthermore, if you have any more infos on the distinction between "Roman Empire" / "Byzantine Empire", I'm all in.

Thanks all !

[deleted]

Thus far i have only accumulated a short list of relatively modern books written about Khan. Does anyone know quality quotes or translations from the book, 'The Secret History of the Mongols' that provides knowledge about his reign and the way that he went about things? I am also searching for sources that show how he was able to maintain and expand his power throughout his reign. Hence far i have a list of maps depicting his movement throughout Mongolia and the ways in which he expanded.

Any help is appreciated!

reading on their epic/myth, it seem that, unlike most other places where most heroes use swords, the greatest heroes and deities of ancient India myths were archers like Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Eklavya, Karna, Bhishma, Drona, Parashurama Rama, and Shiva.

I wonder if it because in India archer were prominent and effective, and thus, more highly regarded than swordman?

The US Marine Corps can take some dirt poor kid from West Virginia or the South Bronx and turn him into a full-fledged US Marine in under a year, which if you think about it, is quite a feat. Was Rome the only other power, prior to the onset of early modernity (when plate armor became useless against bullets and large standing armies became the rule), who could do that?

What am I missing here?

Edit: yikes! Didn't mean to tag this as "childhood." I think it did it automatically?

I ask because of conflicting mentions (though admittedly mostly in passing) of how Romans perceived lead.

In a SciShow episode on lead, the host mentions that ancient Romans would use lead as an artificial sweetener for their wine, as the metal binds to the same taste receptors as sugar. But I've recently gone to a museum exhibit about Pompeii, where they had a display about women's beauty products from Roman times, and the display mentioned that Roman women used lead-based skin powders "despite knowing how dangerous lead was to health".

Did the Romans really sweeten their wine with lead? Did they ever figure out it was suicidal to do so? And did roman women really use lead-based beauty products while knowing the risks to their lives?

One of my uncles once told me that his Great Father (my Great Great Father) when was young (I suppose that was between 1880-1910) traveled in different parts of Europe (Central and South Eastern, Italy, Greece, Turkey) without much difficulty. Occasionally he had to show his passport, but there were generally no barriers to movement.

Can you tell me something more about this phenomenon? Was it because the role of the different governments at the time was not so expanded and intrusive in the life of individuals, or was is because of the big powers that dominated Europe during that period that made borders irrelevant?

I know most of the people in Great Britain have ancestry among the pre-Norman population (and among the pre-AngloSaxon and pre-Roman, apparently genetic studies have shown that the 'original' population never really was eliminated). But I'm asking about those (presumably noble) families who might actually trace their linage based on some written proof, land claims etc.

There's a more or less patriarchal dominance in societies(varies with region & time/age), but what facilitated this?

The American Civil War and how both sides have honored their dead have been relatively controversial. Especially with the rise of the Lost Cause around the turn of the century.

In other countries around the world, have their been equally controversial celebrations or memorializations of the losing side? Off the top of my head I am thinking of the Irish insurrections that have occurred over the years but i would be curious if anyone had other insight.

Such as Reply of the Zaparozhians, La Rendición de Granada, and The proclamation of the German empire.

Were they produced as propaganda, or did the artists of the time just take an interest in the history of their nations?

Clarification:
After Composites and ERA became norm, HEAT effectiveness is greatly diminished. Why still the HEAT is effective(and used) by tank forces when APDSFS is in use?
For lighter targets or because it has the HE part that causes additional damage?
Maybe cost?

edit:I mean that the HE causes damage outside the vehicle(nearby infantry and/or hardware on vehicle) not more damage inside,also I know about the DU fire starting properties in APDSFS' when it penetrates.