Was the general plan amongst nations to simply shoot on sight? Or was he targeted for arrest and trial? I'd assume the Western Allies would aim to capture and trial Hitler, whereas Russia would most likely go for a shoot to kill or death sentence straight off the bat.

Additionally, what kind of punishment would Hitler face if he had been captured before committing suicide? Say, if the British captured him, the Russians captured him or (for some reason) he was captured and trialled by the Americans?

The first Roman attempt to conquer Parthia led by Crassus ended in disaster at the battle of Carrhae. His slow, heavy legions were surrounded and shot to pieces by fast, agile Parthian horse archers.

Centuries later the emperor Trajan invades Parthia and crushes the Parthian Empire, taking its capital, annexing most of the Middle East to the Persian Gulf, and appointing a client king subservient to Rome over what was left of the Parthian realm. For brief moment under Trajan it could be said that the limits Roman Empire (like that of Alexander) extended as far as the borders of India.

What troops, weapons, tactics did Trajan use that differed from those used by Crassus and why did they bring Trajan victory?

Are the clothes accurate to those that would be have been worn around this time period? Or are they the best guesses of the painters?

We have movies and tv shows based on the Germans and Japanese, but we don't often see anything about the Italians. Why aren't they as popular as the other Axis powers?

My question is actually twofold: One, the question in the title. Was the strategy of charging the enemy formation to overrun them with infantry ever used in any shape or form as movies tend to portray it? Did infantry ever charge at all?

Secondly, knowing that unlike what movies tend to show us, spears (Not swords) were the primary weapon of most infantry throughout most of history, would infantry ever charge the enemy with their spears similarly to knights with lances?

This is the example I always hear cited by "anarcho-capitalists"

Hi I have to take an exam which will test me on Indian History and World History. I have gone through your lists and wondered if you would qualify/modify them for a layman taking an exam.

For example I am drawn towards The Penguin History of the World by J M Roberts but heard that his style is overly twisted/pseudo-literary with no easy divisions. Similarly Romila Thapar seems to focus on the culture at the expense of the political changes-which is a break from Indian history that moves around dynasties, yet it doesn't feel comprehensive. Is Sumit Sarkar better than her? What do you think about John Keay's India: A History? I have heard that Norman Lowe, on world history is generally used by students here, but he is expensive. But I do want to get a good book, not some dumbed-down student version, so I am not averse to these very books if you feel they would be worthwhile.

The only book that I have decided on is The Wonder that was India. Thanks in advance!

In his WWI series, Dan Carlin mentions that in 1918 the Germans began using the "Paris Guns" which could fire over 100km. Were the British ships too far away to target with land-based artillery?

Unlike how the Bolsheviks dealt with the Russian royal family, of course, though I know it's not a good comparison.

For example, the last emperor Puyi and his brother Pujie, only served 10 years in prison despite being a prominent enemy collaborator, and Puyi later joined the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and Pujie joined a Communist Party himself and rose to the position of presidium. Both of them were protected during the Cultural Revolution, although I don't think they had much economic privilege.

I am aware that Aisin-Gioro family held no threat at all at that point unlike the Romanov family during the Civil War, and that there were long time of transition between revolution in 1911 and 1949, but it's still very surprising that they were protected and treated relatively well....especially during the context of Cultural Revolution when everything considered 'old' were systemically purged and destroyed.

I just finished Blood Red Snow on a recommendation of this sub. Really interesting read, and a perspective we don't see much. Nevertheless, I was struck but what an immense stand-up guy Koschorrek was at the time. Aside from killing Russian soldiers, he never witnessed/participated in any atrocities on civilians, instead only seeing the aftermath of what Russians did to their own people. He even lets some captured Italian partisans go instead of shooting them as ordered. Generally, he makes little to no reference of anything wrong the Germans may have done, which really irked me. Similarly, Russian POWs are treated fairly in his version, even receiving medical attention, while German POWs are shot.

The question: is it possible that a soldier serving on the Eastern Front could have had such an experience? Or is the consensus that Koschorrek engages in selective memory to appear more sympathetic?

I'm writing a research paper (Sophomore in College) about Alfred the Great. I decided to argue that Alfred tried to create a code that would best unify the Anglo-Saxon people (or, at least, the ones that were in lands that he held after fighting the Vikings), both against external and internal threats.

I've been writing the rough draft (which is due Monday), and I'm starting to wonder if my argument is anywhere near feasible. While I'm finding some support for my claim (Alfred chose laws from the lands that he ruled over as well as ones from Wessex, for instance), at the same time, I'm not sure if I can argue that Alfred's experiences, both in fighting the Viking invaders throughout the 860s and onwards, and in recovering from the events of 878 where he was betrayed by one of his court and forced to flee, were guiding him when making the code.

Help?

In other words, did the Nazi's obsession with eliminating the "undesirables" of society distract or take away from the Nazi's ability to fight?

Hi there!

I've found a newspaper article concerning my great-grandfather, who was killed in WWI. It had an interesting tidbit of information attached which I have never come across in my research and I'm hoping that you awesome folks can help me figure this one out. :)

The text of the article is as follows:

"DIED OF WOUNDS - Gunner Albert George Fricker, Royal Field Artillery, son of Mrs. G. Fricker, Castle-lane, Wookey, and brother of Mrs. Prosser, Southover, Wells, has died of wounds. He went through the South African campaign, and joined up at the outbreak of the present war. He fought at the Dardanelles, as well as France. The transport on which he left the Dardanelles was torpedoed, and he was one of only three men who were saved."

I'm looking for the torpedoed transport ship! Does anyone recognise a ship that might fit this description? The information above is all the information in the article, so I don't know exactly when or where the ship was torpedoed. I'm also not entirely convinced that the number of survivors was accurate.

What I know about his WWI Military Service:

• 26 Sep 14 - Joined up. RFA.
• Unknown 14 - Temporarily attached from RFA to 2 Aus Div H.Q. (Part II. Orders No. 3)
• 29 March 15 -Qualified for Victory, British, 15 Star. Theatre of War "(3) Egypt".
• 23 Nov 15 - Transfered to 5th Infantry Brigade (Unclear if UK or ANZAC, sorry. Information is in his ANZAC records. He was from the UK, though.)
• 4 Oct 18 - Died of Wounds. RFA "A" Bty. 113th Bde. RFA.

Currently doing some research into the topic of colonialism and European settlement with interest to whether it invariably leads to genocide. Going through the Uni database I get hits like: Cambodian Genocide; French Colonial Cambodia etc which aren't exactly what I'm looking for.

I have a reasonable idea of what a Roman soldier might have looked like (Hastati, Principes & Triarii pre-Marius and legionary with gladius, scutum and lorica after), but how did the Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians etc. equip themselves?

By the time of the Social Wars in 91 BC were they essentially fighting in Roman style maniples (my lecturer noted that maniples were partly designed to deal with the hilly terrain of the Italian highlands) or something entirely different?

I'm also curious to what extent/in what way their equipment/tactics may have changed since the earlier Italian revolts in the 4th century BC.

Had The U.S. never fought a gorilla war?

In maps and charts, it showed Russia claiming Alaska. What was life like? How did the Russians treat the Native Americans? My history courses never went over Russian Alaska. Was it similar to Russia in that time period?