It was obviously abhorrent and still criticized 70 years later (which it should always be), but was there proof that it was successful and beneficial to national security? Were any spies convicted or captured because of it?

Or was it overwhelmingly useless?

I have heard (and mostly read) that Gibbon's accounts of the history of rome are not as highly regarded as they once were. Still, it's probably the most prominent book if only by past glory alone. I will read all volumes sooner rather than later. So I would like to know what should I keep in mind while I read it so I don't get any wrong (by current standards) ideas. By the way, now that we are on the subject, what and when was the "breaking point", if any, of Gibbon's credibility? Dramatic but I couldn't find a better way to say it

Why does it seem like Roman powerful not scale as the republic and empire grew?

At the 390BC Battle or Allia, Rome fielded 4 legions when the Republic wasn't much more than Rome and surrounding area. I would think we can assume those 4 legions aren't the total military output. If we assume the max is 8 legions instead, and conservatively put the republic at 1 million citizens, that's 2.4% of the population in the legions.

Flash forward to the empire where everyone seems to quote 45 million population. Of you just assume 30 million, and apply 2.4%, that's 720,000 troops. Couldn't the empire have easily steamrolled Germania with half a million troops in multiple attack fronts and dispense with the cost of occupying and fortifying the Rhine in perpetuity?

Hello friends.

I hope you all can help me. I am of European descent, and have been interested in the general history of the world for quite some time now. I see references to the Aryans a lot, and have noticed conceptions of who this group is and what they've done have changed quite a bit in scholarship, or at least there are different opinions about them, it seems.

For example, I've noticed some people into Aryan history (some racist, some academic) have included things like the Bhagavad Gita in their analysis, claiming that somehow the Aryans are involved in ancient Indian society. This is very confusing to me, as I've been a student of Buddhism and Hinduism for quite some time and always imagined I was learning about people that looked relatively like modern Indians?

I'm hoping someone here can set me straight. Who were the Aryans? What is their role in ancient India? Did they roam around the world basically founding different civilizations, or is that a modern fantasy?

I'm American, and I was thinking about how even though Russia is our "enemy" for many decades now, I don't think a US soldier and a Russian soldier have ever tried to kill each other while in uniform. But I could be wrong.

I've seen or heard several mentions of how colonies were highly popular with the plebian classes and they always act like it should be obvious why but I have no clue.

Did the colonies also have grain doles? Were roman citizens in colonies still allowed to vote? Or did they surrender those things for the chance at material wealth moving to a colony could provide? Or was it things coming back from colonies they wanted?

Or was it just a coincidence that every president after him elected in a year divisible by 20 died in office and they decided to blame it on the Curse of Tippencanoe?

Edit: Except for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but they did survive assassination attempts.

Were*

Dang it.

Hitler and Goebbels amongst others committed suicide as they lost the war. Did they know they would be executed? Did prior European leaderships commit suicide on war defeat - as far as I know nobody did in Germany on the First World War loss. What made this so different?

I just graduated with a major in history and commissioning as a 2LT ,Transportation corp, in the army. I am obsessed with military endeavors and the art of warfare. I'm a little stuck on finding books outside of Clausewitz and Joseph Sinclair.

Looking back at older wars like WWII and even Vietnam, I cannot find any modern examples of terrorism. When did this "hybrid threat" arise and take the place of wars against countries? We seem to worry a lot less about country vs. country now since most threats are just smaller groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. We see acts like the shootings in Paris and the bombings in Boston, when did this all seem to start?

Thank you in advance!

Any reomendations?

I know this was a big deal in the Roman republic - by law no Roman army was permitted to enter the city. And I know part of the impetus behind the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was the perceived threat behind standing armies. But it seems like for modern democracies this isn't much of a concern - when and how did that perception change?

Was it just that India was split up in many small states, where as Thailand or China were empires with huge armies, so that they could defend themselves?

I'm doing a project for our schools's GSA club and part of it deals with gender expression. I wanted to use an example of how expression is influenced by culture by using flappers as an example of early "tomboys" due to their engagement with traditionalaly masculine things at the time (driving, smoking drinking, etc.) Also the flapper ideal of boxy figures short haircuts were an affront to traditional victorian ideals and gender roles at the time.

But the thing is I'm not really sure this is the case as sexual and gender orientation as we know it is new and I'm unsure this was even the case. I asked because if I was wrong I didn't want to be dishonest.

I'm writing a piece of semi-historical fiction, and part of the story involves a series of murders. Whose responsibility would it be to investigate the killings and apprehend the criminals? What was the extent of their authority? What were the usual procedures for criminal investigations?

The United States is often described as a "melting pot" -- a land where people from different cultures come together to into one American people.

To clarify, when I say "Myth", I don't mean something that is untrue or that did not happen. I use "Myth" in the sense of "a idealized story we tell about ourselves."

In my research, the popular sentiment at the founding of the republic in the late 18th century could hardly be called pluralistic or a "melting pot." The term was already fully in place by the mid 20th century. So where did it come from?

I assume it has something to do with the Northern European immigration wave of the early 19th century because they were more accepted by Americans at the time than subsequent, less homogeneous immigration waves that came later. This is merely a guess, however.

[deleted]