It seems to me that India is one of the most culturally heterogeneous major nations with populations having vastly different religions, cultures, and languages. The only reason there was ever a unification was by force under the British crown. Many regions I know of with a history of incorporation by force seem to have thriving separatist movements (e.g. Quebec, Chechnya, Scotland, Tibet). Look at Spain for example. Even though Spanish is the dominant language, it seems each different culture has a thriving separatism movement. Why is India held together so well, especially considering the government doesn't seem to have strong control over many parts of the country?
3 Answers 2016-04-23
From what I've read, casualty rates in Classical armies were most due to disease, starvation, and other means of attrition rather that one giant battle. Somebody even said that a victory would be considered "Pyrrhic" if 10% of your army was lost in the process. Is this true?
I know in the instance of The Battle of Teutoburg Forest that the Roman Casualties were much higher, and same in the Battle of Cannae, but were these over dramatizations because the casualty rates were so shoking? How high really were battle casualties?
1 Answers 2016-04-23
[deleted]
1 Answers 2016-04-23
[deleted]
1 Answers 2016-04-23
1 Answers 2016-04-23
Hi, I’m Margaret Harris, researcher with Monash University of Australia's Anzac Remembered project. I am a cultural military historian, focusing on military death, grief, and remembrance. (This is great at parties!) My qualifications; I have a handful of degrees in military science, social science, and in various types of history (one each in the classic old-school military history, European history, and new-style cultural history). I am just finishing up my PhD thesis with about four months to go on the topic of Anzac remembrance.
Because it's Anzac Day coming up, and all the people in New Zealand and Australia are running their annual media gamut of terrible history, I'm here to answer all your questions about the Gallipoli Campaign of World War One. This includes the military stuff but also its subsequent impact on countries all around the world (primarily New Zealand, Australia, and Turkey, but also Newfoundland, Britain, France, and India).
A bit of background to the campaign. During World War One, the Allied Powers (primarily the French, British, and Russian Empires) were fighting the Central powers (Germany, Austria) in France and Belgium. (The Ottoman Empire, which more concerns this story, never fought in Europe, and joined the war slightly late - November 1914). By late 1914, only a few months after the war had begun, trenches and earthworks stretched from the Swiss border all he way to the Belgian coast and both sides were locked in place.
But although Europe was clearly the major theatre of operations, that didn't mean other places didn't have their own problems. The British were especially worried about the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The Ottoman Empire's entry to the war had cut the most practical warm-water shipping lane to Imperial Russia, and it threatened British control over the incredibly important Suez Canal in Egypt. To add more pressure, the Russian Army was fighting off Ottoman forces in the Caucasus region, and skirmishes had spilled closer to the oil-fields of southern Persia. Operations to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war were clearly very desirable indeed.
The Gallipoli Campaign was planned and executed under the auspices of the British cabinet in response to these pressures. Spoiler alert; it did not go well.
So, after I got a wee bit too into my history here and writing more than planned, it's your turn. Ask me anything! I’ll be checking back throughout the day, until about 6pm AEST.
7:45 AEST Thanks for the questions. I'm calling it - good night!
edit: as I get time I will go back and edit my spelling and grammar mistakes. Sorry for any left behind.
15 Answers 2016-04-23
is so, why specifically Egyptian?
1 Answers 2016-04-23
I read that one of the major reasons for the Sino-Soviet split was due to differences in how aggressive the nations should be in imposing Communism worldwide. Mao wanted the USSR to stop its cooperation with the West in all forms, and personally criticized the Soviet withdrawal in the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, a decade or so later, China is warming up to the US and Mao holds a personal visit with President Nixon, re-establishing diplomatic relations in a pact against the USSR.
I understand China didn't like the USSR, but wasn't a weakly aggressive Communist country better than the Capitalist enemy? Why would China unite with the ideology they were trying to destroy? And why so fast?
2 Answers 2016-04-23
1 Answers 2016-04-22
What was so special about America in it's first few terms that didn't turn into another dictatorship or a democracy with tyrannical rule? I know about Washington refusing leadership a few times but what prevented the then future presidents from abusing their power to hold onto it forever?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
Where did the Jews originate? I had always heard Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), but just read a paper that showed over 80% of Ashkenazim mtDNA can be traced back to Italy. Anyone have any more conclusive info?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
1 Answers 2016-04-22
Firearms seem to be more expensive to manufacture and train on as opposed to Crossbows. additionally, since Bodkin tipped bolts and arrows were able to penetrate all but the heaviest plate armor, why did most armies switch to firearms despite the immense disadvantages of early firearms (slow reload time, technical ability to operate, low effective accuracy, inability to work in many weather conditions)
3 Answers 2016-04-22
2 Answers 2016-04-22
Why was the territory of North Korea prioritized over Formosa?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
You know, the ones with Ra and Zeus, respectively.
1 Answers 2016-04-22
I've been reading a lot of Sun Tzu lately, and I was particularly interested in Part 3.4:
The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.
But I've heard there were a lot of sieges during the medieval period, which makes me wonder if something was different during that time that made sieges a viable option. When would a siege be considered a good war strategy?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
We hear all about this practice of kings/rulers having food tasters so they'd be save from assassination by poison. Even Hitler and Stalin had some.
What good were they if they only tasted the food before it was served/still warm? Most poisons don't act that fast. Realisticallly they should have at least waited 12-24h before serving their Lord/Dictator/whatever.
1 Answers 2016-04-22
According to what I've heard, servants used to whisper "Memento Mori" (Remember, you will die) to Roman leaders to keep them from becoming too obsessed with power. However, I've found little information about this online; is there any historical evidence this was actually done in classical Rome?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
I'm making a video that is a mix of facts and subjective opinion. It should involve a joke about pharaohs being narcissists due to all pyramids / graves they built for themselves.
So, were they narcissists, at least in some way?
1 Answers 2016-04-22
And if yes, are they a minority of all the descendents? Have the other family branches been wiped out?
1 Answers 2016-04-22