Why didn't the Soviets argue that since they fought and took Berlin that they should be allowed to keep the whole city as part of East Germany? Why did they decide to split it with the Western Allied Powers?

I found The Evolution of Operational Art and thought it was really fascinating. I was curious if there are any other like it out there from other countries. What were they thinking before the war started? Reviewing doctrine after WW2 is also fine!

Greetings fellow history lovers,

Firstly I apologize for my English (or grammar) since it's not my first language.

Secondly, I thanks in advance for any responses to my question, on why Alaric are able to achieve what Hannibal can't which is to sack Rome?

I have been enjoying HistoryMarche's series on Hannibal, and somehow rooting for Hannibal inspite of knowing he would eventually lost. Then it comes to mind, the question on why Alaric are able to sack Rome.

I'm looking forward to everyone's responses.

Obviously it still waged wars and dissolved into bloody rebellions and schisms multiple times, but it's often said that the humanist outlook of the dominant threads of Chinese thought tended to disincentivise war. Can we say that the Chinese worldview was genuinely more peaceable than its counterparts elsewhere? If so, how and why did it develop differently?

what i mean by that is, was he evil, was he comparable to lets say hitler or stalin?

Can a Jester insult a King without being beheaded? Are the Jester's included in Wars? Is there still a living Jester today?

There is mention in the Bible of methods so they certainly had ways but what were they?

Preferably that goes into the style and structural evolution across the time as well as regional and explanation about how the structure works and technical diagram (I'm going to use it to make 3d models).

I'm interested in any of China, Korea, Japan. Comparative books about the three are also welcomed.

Thank you.

SPOILERS

What i want to know is if women really could have that much power in that era. I mean, the Queen doesn't have a husband, so i guess she holds all the power, and if she has all the power she can give it to her lover. So i think is plausible, but i wanted to be sure.

So I am taking the time to slowly learn about different parts of US history and I want to start with the first couple of eras. I want to understand how this country was founded first and foremost.

Any recommendations for what to watch, read, etc?

I’m reading Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, and in the section detailing the jobs given to Alexander’s friends who were exiled on his behalf during Phillip’s reign, he says that Alexander appointed “Eriguios as cavalry commander of the allies, and his brother Laomedon (who was bilingual) commander of the barbarians taken in war.” I’m assuming that “allies” in this context means Greek troops, and “barbarians” means any non-Macedonians or Greeks? So what does “bilingual” mean in this context— what language are we supposed to understand Laomedon as speaking that is valuable? Is it Greek, or would speaking Greek be assumed for cavalry-class Macedonians (or was the native Macedonian language of the time similar enough to Greek to be interoperable?) If it were Greek, wouldn’t it make more sense to put him in charge of Greek-speaking troops? Or are we supposed to assume barbarian=mostly Persian at this point, and assume he speaks Persian?

More generally, I’d be grateful for any resources someone could point me to on multilingualism at the time— what kinds of people would speak what second languages, where did translators come from, etc.

​

Thank you!

This was a text published by the USAF during the Cold War. Does anyone know how to access it? Here is an example of a title page. I am a PhD student who would be grateful for any help!

This subject may be touchy, but be certain that this is a sincere question that I haven't been able to answer by myself.

AFAIK, the current academic consensus on Vth Century Europe is that the Roman Empire didn't decline as much as it did, well, transform.

Thing is, I do not quite understand where that distinction stands, and what makes "Late Antiquity" a useful concept instead of a pretty word to avoid doing a moral judgement on history.

As an example: nowadays, historians say that Roman Art became less realistic and more symbolic due to cultural changes. Why do historians say this instead of determining that artists just got... worse?

Looking at the arch of Constantine in Rome, surely one can see how statues look more rigid than their I and II century counterparts. Even Byzantine Art during the Macedonian renaissance looks quite a bit more awkward than art from the Augustan period... How are we so sure this was the artistic intent, and not just a lack of expertise on the part of the craftsman?

While we’re at it, is this even true? I often hear it thrown around as a fun fact but I’ve never verified the veracity of this claim.