During previous centuries, political leaders (seemingly) didn't use ideology as a justification for conflict, but in the 20th century almost every conflict was ideological in nature. How true is that statement? If it is true, was it due to increases in mass media and the incorporation of the masses into the political sphere? If false, is the perception that it was an ideological century due to the increased propaganda activities of 20th century governments or our nearness to it time-wise?

I have heard the idea thrown around from some people that the American military pushed innovation more than Europe in the 19th century... They referenced things like the Gatling Gun, less heavy reliance on cavalry, and development of ironclads.

How accurate is this? If it is inaccurate, what sort of military innovations did Europe develop in that time?

I'm sorry if this trends too close to politics or current events, but I found this assertion really interesting without knowing how to go about looking into the history of "anti-democratic" leadership in America.

Right now, international aid is normal enough that people would get pissed off if, say, the U.S. didn't send ships over to Haiti after a local catastrophe. It's almost seen as a responsibility. That's clearly a relatively new thing, but how new?

In almost every country I've heard of, torture was legal and accepted in the early 17th century. I know, for example, that torture was used at the Salem witch trials and against Guy Fawkes. Then I don't know much of anything about the history of torture other than the U.S. banned it with the 8th amendment and by the time you get to the 20th century there seems to have been widespread disapproval of it because countries would use it in their propaganda about each other.

I know torture still is employed in some countries, but that fact that it is at least nominally banned seems almost as great an accomplishment as the abolition of slavery. So who are the William Wilberforces and Frederick Douglases and Harriet Tubmans of the abolition of torture?

Were early bans based more on the idea that torture wasn't a reliable way of getting the truth, or more as torture as a violation of rights?

I remember someone telling me about this man.. Very effective and intelligent person, but he never learned to read. I believe this was around the time of Eisenhower's administration but it may have been as late as Nixon's.

Thank you!

This book is about ways to achieve power, and is filled with historical anecdotes about the uses of the 48 laws. It is most entertaining, highly amoral, and the most requested book in American prisons (make of that what you will...). However, I find it hard to enjoy reading ever since I did some research on some of the stories of people using these laws. For example, the 3rd law is about hiding your intentions. There is then a story about how the Duke of Marlborough during the War of the Spanish Succesion in 1711 captured a citadel in northern France that blocked the road further down through Europe, with the intention of letting them take it back, hoping they would then destroy it, so he could march unoppossed down through Europe (!).The logic was, that he would confuse them by taking the fort, making them think he wanted it for some unknown purpose, let them recapture and destroy it, so the road down Europe would be easier...

This, to me, makes absolutely no sense:

• How could he possibly know they would destroy the fort?

• If the fort was such a huge problem when going south, then why was it so easy to capture?

• Was it really necessary to have the fort destroyed, even after he had gained control of it?

Indeed when I actually did some serious research (wikipedia...), I couldn't find anything supporting this story. Marlborough did succesfully lay siege to an important French fort in 1711 (Bouchain). However, the British retreated soon after, and the fort was retaken the following year. The siege didn't have any significant impact, the French didn't subsequently destroy it, and I think it's safe to say, that Marlboroughs intentions were preeetty clear throughout the whole affair. You know, with the whole "being at war" thing...

So my question is, is this an exception, or is the level of historical accuracy this low throughout the whole book?

Did WW1 expose it in some way?

I've read about the different gasses they've used due to costs, but nothing seems to address the reason why they've specifically used gas chambers.

As morbid and awful as it may sound, I can imagine a few other ways on how to commit genocide in a way that's more cost-effective than gas chambers and ovens. Surely the far darker minds behind the Final Solution have considered it - so why did they end up with gas chambers?

As a history student living in Connecticut, this is what I am taught. According to history teachers and historians around here, the various modern innovations of the American Civil War made it the first modern war and an object of awe and speculation to all of Europe. New strategies and technologies like the rise of the breech-loaded rifle, telecommunications, primitive ironclads, and even submarine prototypes are seen as the first of their kind in the history of the world.

However, since my neighbors and I are about as Yankee as it gets, I'm wondering if these opinions are biased. What actually defines a 'modern war'? Are there any earlier 19th or even 18th century conflicts which could be said to hold such a title?

It would be funny if it had a literal connotation.

Throughout history, since the Han, China has always followed periods of unity, then it fractured and a new dynasty took control. Today, China is essentially totally united under the People's Republic.

However, in Europe, the only long-lasting state that held the majority of Europe's population is the Roman Empire, although at times some regimes managed to hold much of Europe for a short time period. Despite this, Europe has essentially always been totally disunited. Why is it that the vast area of China could easily be united under a single rule, whereas this almost never happened in Europe?

Nowadays when you hear the word "mercenary" you either think of some PMC, former special forces security guard, some dodgy character who's spent time abroad and not fought for his country or poor men and boys from the 3rd world hired to suppress protestors at some dictators whim (Gaddafi, Libya 2011).

However, if you look back long enough, you can see frequent mentions of "mercenary armies", not just shady groups, hired to embark on campaigns rather than dirty work that you wouldn't ask regular soldiers to do. Seriously, from Egypt, to the wars of the Diadochi to the Punic wars, there seems to be a period where citizens took a back seat to mercenary forces in war. It doesn't seem like Carthage even used their own citizens in the Punic wars because of the frequent mentions of Greeks, Gallic mercenaries, Numidians and Iberians in their forces. Egypt even more so, using Libyans, Greeks, Galatians and Nubians. Rome had their system of auxilaries who had a vested interest in the long term of fighting for land rather than short term payment. And then of course there were special guard units of foreign warriors in the heart of the Roman Empire, such as the Palatine guards and the later Varangian guards in the Byzantine empire.

And even after the fall of the Roman Empire, mercenaries seem incredibly common, especially in Northern Europe, with mentions of "war-bands" of hired mercenaries in Saxon and Viking armies. And this keeps cropping up throughout the medieval era, with German and Dutch mercenaries sounding pretty common in the 15th and 16th centuries. I can't put an exact date on when fighting for wealth rather than national service drops off, but it seems like the 17th century might have been the century where this begins to take place.

So, what changed throughout this period for generals and kings and emperors to suddenly focus on building a professional force of their own citizens rather than a force of mercenaries? When did mercenaries stop being so common in war? Or are mercenaries still surprisingly common today and I just haven't noticed?

I specifically mean training techniques and day to day schedules, as well as what sort of skills would be taught to most recruits that would be completely foreign to me (entrenching? Bayonet fighting?).

Now, obviously, many characters in the early parts of the Bible are just legendary. I'm not asking about Adam and Eve here. What I'm asking about are those who were later, such as those in the time of Jesus. Specifically however, King David. I have seen claims of descent from King David. Are these at all founded in fact? And at what point in Torah/Bible can we start accepting at least the truth of some of these people's very existence, if not the entire story? (For example, while King David could have existed, he probably was closer to a village chieftain than a king of a vast kingdom as the Torah describes.)

I know that in Ancient Rome, there were some names which were so common they had abbreviations, e.g. C for Gaius, Cn for Gnaeus, M for Marcus, etc. My question is, how common were these names as compared to other, less common ones. How big was the selection in possible names? Was it mostly just a "pick your favorite of the top 20", or were more diverse names common as well? And apologies, but I don't have any specific period in mind; Republic, Empire, even Kingdom would be fine. Basically any Latin-speaking society in what is considered the "ancient world" would apply to my question.