How were they able to do that? Many nations could barely survive losing a single, large army without capitulating. How were the Romans, especially during the Republic, able to launch war after war against their neighbors endlessly without war fatigue?

I'm reading about the Khmer Rouge and communism in Cambodia. In the Khmer Rouge's ideology, violence isn't just encourage but extreme acts of violence are seen as an essential part of having the proper 'revolutionary consciousness'.

Obviously the Khmer Rouge took those ideas to a extreme. And while their particular style of communism was very much outside of the norm, they were heavily influenced by Stalin and Mao.

What I'm curious about, outside of the Khmer Rouge, is how communist thought on political violence and party-purges evolved from Marx to Mao. In the communist theory of the time, how much was violence essentially encouraged or thought to be inevitable, how was it justified, and how did it evolve?

Proconsuls, Propraetors, and Praetors were governors of provinces, but who governed a city? Would there be significant regional difference in leadership across the empire, like vestiges of leadership composition from conquered peoples lingering after conquest but acting under supreme Roman authority? Would we find a specific type of city mayor in Roman colonia vs those of minority populations? Maybe like a mayor in a Roman/Italian colonia vs a Shophet in say Roman Punic Utica after it’s incorporation into the Roman system?

I am interested, if there were locally restricted attacks from the German side after the signing of the German capitulation but before it taking effect at 11 o'clock. The question is targeted at troops and officiers who knew from the capitulation and not at those who might attacked because they did not receive informations quick enough. I've watched "Im Westen nichts Neues" and the attack order at the end seemed weird especially considering the overall war fatigue and disillusion of the troops. I couldn't find anything specific so hopefully someone here can answer, thanks in advance.

Did words like shit or fuck exist back i that day? If not,what were common cuss words among the serfs?

As i’m learning about english stuart history i noticed that french and english nobles/gentry were very close like Charle 2 and Louis 14 and along with spanish nobles but i was wondering what was the most spoke language in this time period was it english ? like how did they communicate and party together and marry each other ?

According to many scholars agreed that Jesus died between the year of 33 AD - 36 AD, i have been looking for a source for any commemoration for Jesus's 1000 years death in medieval europe

This is specifically in reference to the American Civil War, but after a second thought I realized it would be interesting to see if other examples helped shape how countries fought in it.

For specifics, I know that within the American Civil War that trench warfare was used at times and (at least as an American) we see it as a big precursor to the Trench Warfare seen in WW1. I wanted to know if countries that experienced this warfare earlier on had any sort of advantages within the war or battles fought.

Within my thought process I'd think that countries such as the United States would have a bit of an advantage even while joining late war since they'd have at least some basis on what to do (excluding information we'd know about tactics and strategy from allies and reports), but I'd like to know if this thought process is true and more specific information whether I be right or wrong.

I’ve just been listening to a philosophy podcast which mentioned that although Aristotle was a prolific writer, the only material of his that has survived are his lecture notes.

I can understand why texts from the ancient world would get destroyed over time, but how were texts preserved, to the point where we can quote from them today? As a follow up question, when do we go from having zero historical record of our ancestor’s writing, to having patchy records, to having a virtually complete record?

For example, when it had been vacant for a long time, why was the title of king of Bohemia still in existence in 1618? And why was there no king of Austria, if you could have kings in the HRE? Who kept these rules, or enforced them?

I know the idea has been around for decades. I've read repeatedly that it has no truth in it. It's frequently tied to conspiracy theories about his assassination. But when and where did this idea begin?

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Friends & Friendship! This week, we're lifting up all things related to friends and friendships! Know something about the history of humans building relationships outsides family structures you want to share? Or want to pass along the history of something related to friendships like friendship bracelets, pen pals, or secret clubhouses? Bring it on!

When people talk about Viking raids, it is mostly about Britain, Ireland and the baltic area, although the area of present-day Germany or the Dutch coast would have been very easy to reach, especially for the Norsemen living in Denmark. Are there any records of raids in this area?

I’m very curious to know how the aristocratic families in Europe where founded. I’m looking for the period when these families Forefathers started from nothing and “ built the aristocracy “ Thanks in advance and cheers!

Eugen Sandow, widely known as the Father of Bodybuilding, staged the first bodybuilding contest in 1891. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the famous author of the Sherlock Holmes serials/books, was one of the judges.

I find this fascinating – was Doyle an established author by 1891? Why was he considered a suitable judge, being an author? Were Sandow and him friends? Was Doyle interested in bodybuilding, and did he continue to be involved in competitions as a judge? Was the average person surprised he was a judge or was it expected? Was this a marketing ploy to get more people interested? Do we have any records of Doyle’s comments while judging?

When the destruction or fragmentation of Rome appears certain, some extraordinary individual saves it against all odds.

1. Rome is sacked by the gauls but Marcus Camillus drives them off and saves the day.
2. Hannibal kills every Roman army he can find and half of Italy defects but Scipio Africanus finally defeats him.
3. Constant civil war threatens to fracture the republic but Octavian achieves peace.
4. The Empire fractures but Aurellian reunites it.
5. The Empire appears certain to lose to the Persians but Heraclius fights and wins the last Persian War.
6. The Latins sack and occupy Constantinople for 57 years but Alexios Strategopoulos retakes it with only 800 men.

What could last for 100 generations that lets the Romans defy the odds? Or are the Romans just lucky?