What if there was another race of humans that inhabited Australia before the Aboriginals and had their land stolen by them?

As in, anyone ever think of or something and not tell it to anyone?

When soilders get injured the soilders round them put this white powder all over the wound until the medics come. Can someone tell me what exactly this is? Is it some sort of antiseptic or something to slow the blood flow?

There was obviously no ID card or computer database to check. What was stopping say, somebody in Nazareth in the year 1CE, moving from Judea to Gaul and assuming citizenship?

I'm just finishing out Dan Carlin's Hardcore History (at least the free ones), and I really enjoyed them. I did some looking around, and a lot of the history podcasts I found feel pretty ... Superficial. I figured you guys would be the ones to ask. Thanks in advance!

In the Sopranos there was a scene where Tony and his gang are torturing a Jewish guy who owes them money or something. The Jewish guy says something about how hateful people will always get their downfall and says something like "Look at the Roman Empire. Where are the mighty Romans today?" And then Tony says something badass like, "You're looking at them, motherfucker." And then they drill his kneecaps or whatever.

So, how true is that statement? Are modern Italians direct descendants of the citizens of Rome? Thanks in advance!

I've seen this image being posted on social media claiming that the US has been at war 222 out of 239 years since 1776. Is this true or just some made-up fact?

Where were the forces of Austria, Russia, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal located? How ready were they to carry on a war with Napoleon, should the campaign in the low countries go badly for the coalition?

In comparison, what about France?

Although "throughout history" questions are to be avoided, I must ask because I assume the answer would change with time period, culture, arms, armor, tactics, and battle formations.

I'm looking for a book or books that have information regarding the militaries that fought in the Crusades, or even the medieval ages more generally, but with a more detailed focus on the arms, armor, orders of battle and actual fighting formations being used.

I've got a stack of booms that talk about medieval warfare more generally but I can't find any that talk about how knights might have fought on the battlefield or how spearwalls would be employed or other specific tactical information. Thanks ahead of time.

My own perception is that they were poorly equipped, not as well trained, and also less motivated. Hitler was a great leader. Mussolini less so, and the puppet Romanian government was... well... a puppet government. If I were conscripted in Italy or Romania, I doubt that I'd give 100% and I would probably surrender the first chance I got.

But are my perceptions typical of those involved or am I talking out of my extremities?

And why did German troops care so much more? Culture? Indoctrination? Shame of defeat in WW1? Other?

Or the moon landing in general. It obviously inspired patriotism, but what other effects did it have?

The conventional wisdom is that, as horrible as the bombings were, they were necessary to avoid a US invasion of mainland Japan which would have led to significantly more deaths on both sides.

I never really considered a reason to doubt this, but as I read more about the history of nuclear weapons, I find myself asking some surprising questions. In Kai Bird & Martin Sherwin's American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, there's a full chapter dedicated to where the bombings took place, and why. They refer to a series of meetings in Washington after the Trinity test where the top brass made all the pertinent strategic decisions of using the bombs. Bird & Sherwin attempt to illustrate (in their book about Oppenheimer: a fairly pacifistic and diplomatic personality) that the meetings basically fell into two camps: Oppenheimer and the Los Alamos scientists on the one side, and the military brass on the other side. Apparently Oppenheimer argued for a detonation over the sea, to demonstrate power without taking lives. The military retort that they have to show what the bomb can do to a population centre, and they have to use both to show Stalin that they have an arsenal (so they can keep him in check after the war). They feature excerpts from the diaries of high-ranking Truman aides which suggest that the Japanese Empire might have been willing to surrender even before a bombing or an invasion, as long as some conditions are met (chiefly, that the office/title of Emperor won't just disappear after reconstruction).

So I thought that was interesting, and it put the bombings in a whole new light for me. Then I read Command & Control by Eric Schlosser, and he references historical arguments like Bird & Sherwin's and basically waves his hand and says that it's just conjecture and that the bombings were not only inevitable, but necessary to facilitate a surrender.

So, my question is what the historical consensus says about this issue, beyond the basic pop history books that introduced me to these ideas.

edit: I'm also shamefully ignorant of what exactly was happening between Japan and the USSR after German surrender, and if this could have influenced the decision at all.

I've read in several places that the family line of Confucius can be traced back a ridiculous number of generations, and that he has known descendants today. Is this family line historically verified, or is it just tradition?

In just the Republic years it had dealings with the Seleucids & Parthians. Were there any Roman mercenaries fighting with Xenophon? How many Persian Governments fell while Constantinople watched the bodies of its enemies float downstream?