I've been rereading Caesar's Commentaries and came across a passage where the Germanic Suebian king Ariovistus claimed to have intricate knowledge of the political atmosphere and factions in the city of Rome; he tells Caesar that many Roman elites sent agents to him and that they would be grateful if Ariovistus had Caesar killed. As well, during the course of his book, we hear that tribes on the other side of Gaul or in Britain hear about Caesar's campaigns and prepare for military action. We often have the impression that 'barbarian' peoples lurked around in the woods, ignorant of the Mediterranean world, until they collided with it during migrations or invasions.

This got me thinking about how information networks would have functioned beyond the boundaries of Roman and Hellenistic civilizations; how safely could a Roman (or Gallic, Germanic etc.) agent travel to the court of a Germanic king on the Rhine or even further beyond? How long would it have taken? Was it exceptional for Ariovistus to gain information about Roman political intrigue by direct dispatches? How extensive were these networks - did they only reach the most significant powers in pre-Roman temperate Europe or did they extend to smaller communities as well?

I don't expect all of my questions to be answered but I'd appreciate any contribution!

Currently reading through Bernard Bachrach's Early Carolingian Warfare and he made a point of highlighting how the early Carolingians used sword phalanxes. However he did not really go into detail how these formations worked, and it seemed pretty similar to a shield wall formation. However is the shield wall something that comes about later? If not, what is the difference?

Also if there are any accounts of serial killers in any ancient civilisation feel free to let me know.

P.S English is not my Native language so excuse any grammar/spelling mistakes.

Howdy Historical folks!

I've got a wee bit of a question about the Catholic Church and WWII. Two questions, in fact.

• Is the thesis, most notably put forward by John Cornwell in Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII was an antisemite and collaborationist who failed to help the Jewish people during the Shoah have any historical credibility, and if so/not, why so/not?

• I've sometimes heard it said that fascism - as distinct from Nazism - is "essentially the European Catholic right wing" or something to that effect. I believe the source of this quotation is the late Christopher Hitchens, who characterized fascism as the Catholic right, armed. To what extent is this true?

Thanks!

:)

What sort of 'work' was assigned? Were they anything like what they are today? Were there essays?

New Economic Policy was sort of state capitalism IIRC allowing private businesses unlike later administrative system. It worked well.

How did communists explained it working well? Hadn't it made them doubt the idea of Marxism-Leninism? How did they explained the need to drop it? Where there other real reasons apart from increasing state control and creating totalitarian society?

hey, ive been intrested in what kind of drugs people used and in which time. Ive started watching Deadwood (western tv show) and i saw that opium was a drug that people like to use. I would like to if there where other they used back then. What about weed? Or even cocaine ? If i was a cowboy in ca 1880 or earlier what kind of drugs could i use ?

sorry for english, im dutch

So I get that he was basically giving the Knights Hospitaller Malta in fiefdom for free/because he was Catholic/they beat up Corsairs/probably other complex medieval political reasons. What seemed odd to me was the tribute of the Maltese Falcon. Why a falcon? Why every year? Was it special in some way? Was it the symbol of Malta or the king or something like that? Did the king just really have a thing for falcons? What is the deal with Maltese Falcons?

I'm curious to know how did the majority of citizens from the former Eastern Block states (GDR, Hungary, etc) view russians and the Soviet Government? I only know about Bulgarians (since i'm Bulgarian), that we didn't hate soviets or any other Eastern Block nation. Especialy i'm curious to know how hungarians viewed soviets after the 1956 revolution and how czechs and slovaks viewed soviets after the 1968 Prague Spring?

Given that the Ottoman Empire is quite a religious one, and fratricide is obviously something that can't possibly be permitted by religion, how did the palace justify this practice to the populace?

I am currently listening to the excellent "History of Rome" podcast and one thing that struck me is how many different peoples played crucial roles in the diplomatic and military matters facing the roman empire in the 4th and 5th century. What I'm wondering is how the romans made deals with hunnic kings, frankish, gothic, vandal, etc. chieftains, berber tribes and the persians.

Of course, long-standing contact with peoples like the franks and of course the persians will have given them ample opportunity to learn the language, but how did they broker deals with the huns, who they had almost no direct contact with before? While I imagine that greek and latin were widespread as diplomatic languages even outside the empire, it still boggles my mind how communication across these linguistic and cultural gulfs was handled in practice.

Unless they're driving motorcycles with sidecars, that is.

I'm between high school and college, and I'm trying to self study history. My main goal is to establish a foundation of knowledge that I can build on later by reading more specific works. The problem is that I'm overwhelmed by the size of the historical body of knowledge. I'm hoping that someone might be able to make some recommendations as to a course of study.

I've been reading The Story of Civilization books by Durant. Do you think doing so is amongst the more efficient ways to develop a base knowledge? It's like exercise: if you want to put on muscle fast the best way to do it is to lift free weights. That doesn't account for what you might want to do with your body, but it's undoubtedly the fastest way. I want to know what the fastest way to build that foundation is. If you're just looking for facts it doesn’t matter much how you approach history. If I wanted to know the history of WWII I could easily just read about all the things that happened. But I want to know what caused WWII to happen (in this example).

I'm thinking maybe I need to better understand the philosophy of history. Such as how historians study history and what they expect to obtain by studying it in whatever ways they choose. Any good intro texts for this?

If it matters, what I want to do with what I learn is apply it to philosophy because political and ethical philosophy are my greatest interests.

So any suggestions for intro study of history in general and historiography?

Thanks

When one thinks of the American Revolution, certain names come to mind, such as Jefferson, Washington, Madison, etc. What would be the Confederate equivalents? What were their inspirations, their thinkers, their philosophies? who or what did they draw their country's ideals on? The only non-military name I can think of is Jefferson Davis. All of the other "big names" in the confederacy are military leaders like Lee and Jackson....

Was it German artillery pointed at the beaches? The MG-42's notoriously fast fire rate spitting bullets at tremendous rate? German snipers? Friendly fire even?

things like explosions and lighning and other stuff

I am currently building an army for a wargame (Bolt Action) based on WWII. I have chosen the Soviet Union as my army. (In Soviet Russia, Army chooses you...What a country?)

Anyway, I have to paint the figures myself. I was wondering if there were any units with unique or interesting uniforms I might emulate?