So I've heard that Roman's had no 'soft' c's in terms of pronunciation. I.e Ceasar was actually pronounced Keaser/Kaisar/etc thus the German word Kaisar~. Was this accurate? If so, then wouldn't the traditional monthly names such as December be pronounced Dekember similarly to Decade? Just a quick inquiry. Again, if this was true why was it changed? When did the transition to softer c's become apparent?

The redditor was trying to refute the idea that Japanese culture is exceptionally collectivist. Speaking of, what do our Japan experts make of the idea that Japanese culture's supposed extreme emphasis on the group is the result of early communities being based on rice farming? I.e., rice farming can only be done in a group, so if you get kicked out of the group, you're in trouble.

Edit: "Supposed" bolded for emphasis.

So I'm reading the book "The Bloody White Baron" by James Palmer which is about the rise and fall of Baron Ungern Sternberg and his misbegotten attempt to take over Mongolia at the end of the Russian civil war. In one of the chapters on that war, I came across an incredible description about the use of armored trains during the Russian civil war. I will quote it in full here because it's really something

“Armored trains were the dreadnoughts of this war. Huge and expensive, they could bring a devastating amount of firepower to bear-albeit upon a necessarily limited area. Three standard types of armored train had been manufactured during the war, but in Siberia many of them were unique, improvised creations; engineers took an ordinary train and bolted great slabs of steel to its sides as armor, then took whatever guns could be found and attached them to the roof of the carriage. Some were merely semi-armored, their wooden carriages reinforced only with bricks or sandbags- enough to deflect rifle bullets, but useless against artillery.

Most comprised eight to ten carriages, but they could be much longer. Their modular nature made for both flexibility of purpose and ease of replacement; damaged rolling stock could be cannibalized for spares. Some of these snaky juggernauts were painted in camouflage colors, greens and browns, while others were liveried in menacing black. Churchill wrote of armored trains that ‘the very name seems strange; a locomotive disguised as a knight-errant, the agent of civilization in the habiliments of chivalry’, but there was nothing either civilized chivalrous about their use in the Transbaikal. Semenov’s trains had no effective opposition, and to be the commander of one was like being captain of a pirate vessel; one could simply roll into a small town and demand the locals either hand over whatever they had or be blown to smithereens. The Reds strove to set up their armored train crews as a trained, organized force, and tried to use them as massed artillery. In contrast, Semenov’s captains recruited or pressganged their own men, often acting on their initiative rather than any higher orders. Crew sizes ranged from forty to nearly two hundred, sometimes with an auxiliary infantry force of two or three hundred men. Many were armed with naval artillery, stripped from the boats of the Siberian lakes. They were given names fit for machines of mass destruction; the Reds had the ideological Death to parasites, Ruin of the Counter-revolution, Liberty or Death, while among the White trains in Siberia were the Valiant, Swift and Just, along with the more aptly named Master, Avenger, Destroyer, Terrible and Merciless.” From The Bloody White Baron by James Palmer. Chapter 5: Carrion Country, page 104

What I was wondering is how they kept up the maintenance of the train tracks? Were trains an at all effective weapon during the Russian civil war? What kept the train tracks in Russia from being damaged so consistently that train use simply wasn't possible? After all, I know that during other wars of the industrial age, train tracks were frequent military targets. (Sherman's neckties being one famous example)

It seems to me that ancient Indian / Chinese / Egyptian civilizations weren't documented as extensively as the Greco-Roman ones. Is this correct? Is it just that there is more documentation translated to English? Or were the others just less inclined to make permanent records?

I just remembered: weren't the Sumerians extensive record keepers as well?

I came across my grandpa's honorable discharge papers and would like to know more info about what some of the fields mean. His grade was PFC. The organization field says "Hq Company 2 Bn 515 Parachute Inf" It looks like maybe this is several different organizations from what I have gathered.

Occupational Specialty "Anti-Tank Gunner 7610"

Some other field that's covered by the text (I assume weapon specialty).

"IMG Expert Carbine SS" "Combat Infantryman Badge M-1 Rifle SS"

Battles and campaigns "Normandy Ardennes Rhineland Central Europe"

Decorations "Distinguished Server Medal Bronze Arrowhead EAME Theater Ribbon w/4 Bronze Stars Good Conduct Ribbon"

If anyone give any insight as do what some of this means, I would greatly appreciate it! He never talked about the war much (he didn't meet my grandma until after the war). My family mentioned that he was paratrooper and at some point someone in my family had his parachute that had several bullet holes in it. They also said he was in the battle of the bulge where he got very bad frostbite which supposedly lead to him losing both legs when he got older.

Right, so, when we think about classical Western thought, the ideological machineries that explained why women were inferior to men were actually quite sophisticated. In Greco-Roman Antiquity, a woman released all the evils to the world (myth of Pandora); women were considered comparable to children in that they had no self-control over their rationality, emotions or sexuality, which meant that they needed to be controlled (thanks, Aristotle); and whereas man's duty was to be loyal and useful his homeland, woman's was to be loyal and useful to her husband. The Christian thought inherited similar themes, with Eve of course being the reason human kind bear mortal sin and Thomas Aquinas coming up with such great conversation-openers such as "woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power..."

I'd be interested to hear, how women and femininity were conceptualized in the Asian intellectual tradition, seeing that women were (as I've understood) also considered inferior to men on the continent until modern times. Did e.g. Chinese imperial thinkers write treatises on women? Why did they think women were inferior to men? What was an ideal women like? Were there exceptions to the rule (like there were in the West) and some ancient authors who advocated more rights for women? Big topic, I know, but I'd welcome comments giving insights on individual authors just as much as big sweeps! Would love to hear from e.g. Japanese and Indian intellectual traditions as well.

For example: banana = penis, oyster/clam = vagina, chocolate/strawberry = love, etc.

If I recall correctly, the British Empire began the tradition, mainly because it benefited them economically. What exact time period did they begin doing this, and was there a certain event or driving force that brought about this policy? There has to be reason other than gold being shiny and people being fond of treasure, right?

If the reason that gold became a backer of currency is simply that people value treasure, then at what point in history did this valuation occur, and why? If I am correct, gold has no major practical uses.

Also, were there previous societies (Rome, China, etc.) that valued gold similarly (or other materials)?

For example it's possible to marry your close kin which gives you an opinion bonus with other characters. This includes father-daughter, mother-son marriages. I know that royalty routinely practiced marriages between cousins, but Zoroastrians are the only ones I've read about actually practicing marriages between immediate kin. Did it ever actually work like this in real life? Also are there any other religions, societies, where incest wasn't considered a taboo? On the other hand, what is the MOST incest-averse society that historians know of?

I've been searching for scientific article about the crusades but I can't find anything good. I've been searching for french sources mainly but I've looked a bit of english sources but all I can find is either books or vulgarisation articles. (I'm really not certain how to translate this in english)

I'm curious about how well the man covers his topics.

My teacher mentioned they used to be reversed but kind of glossed over it. It seems like an important thing in US political history that should be more known but I can't find an in depth answer.