Basically, I'm asking if during proxy wars like Korea and Vietnam, did official Soviet and American soldiers ever directly fight one another? Or was it always though a proxy?

Just what the title says.

I want a book that gives me an impartial opinion of each president's time in office and presidency as a whole. I understand that it's sometimes difficult for impartiality when it comes to this, and that true neutrality on the subject is hard to come by, but anything you guys can offer is greatly appreciated!

So I'm pretty sure (with no evidence to back this up) that common military troops probably had a training regimen that made them fit for combat. I would make the most sense. But I wonder if the nobles who led these troops in battle-- lords, knights, generals, etc-- had to train in some way to also be able to perform well in combat.

It seems it's very different learning to fence with a sword vs actually training to build up the endurance and strength necessary to fight a protracted battle. While not all nobility fought on the frontlines, for those who did, where did they get their physical conditioning from? Did they have their own "workout routines" or something similar?

In a book I'm reading about Kurdish people the author goes and says "Kurdistan had a reputation similar to Scotland as an acknowledged source of good officers and troops."

It goes and gives Saladin as a good example. I was wondering is the author talking about Scotland as in a source for troops and officers for England and what examples do you know of those people.

The Romans advanced military, amongst other things, helped them conquer the known world. I'm curious as to the origins of the tactics they used and their equipment (i.e. the gladius, scutum, and pilum, etc.). And what primary or secondary sources could I be referred to to learn more about them?

Seems like he has an opinion on everything, he must have one on this

Any good info or sources I could study on my own would be greatly appreciated.

Well, maybe not all the emperors were considered especially good, but it does seem strange that multiple competent emperors were followed by sons who weren't adopted into the family who did such a terrible job.

The examples:

1. Nero following his father Claudius. I know Nero had 5 good years, but why not more.

2. Commodus following his father Marcus Aurelius. Marcus seemed pretty good, and had Commodus triumph with him, so why did Commodus attempt to change the name of Rome and attempt to be a gladiator?

3. Caracalla following Septimius Severus. He killed his own brother to have the empire to himself. Septimius also seemed pretty cool, especially according to Tacitus. So what gives?

Edit: I guess Domitian following Vespasian could also count, though Vespasian had really prepared his other son Titus for the job. I assume the 'heir and a spare' idea wasn't too important for Vespasian.

So I am writing a book at the moment taking a break on my current book and want to do something new. My book is going to take place some time between 100 AD and 200 AD it will span 3 books and follow an assassin, legionary, and emperor through out these time periods. I need help trying to make the world as authentic as possible. So far I have have novice knowledge of Roman civilization at the moment I am cramming everything ancient Rome into my head and study notes. So what are some books you all would recommend on.

-Roman Culture -Roman Politics -Roman Sciences -Roman Military -Roman Civilian Life -Military Life -Military Technologies -Roman Travel -Roman Architecture and Art -Roman Philosophies -Roman Economics

While I am not looking to be historically accurate during this time period in terms of who actually ruled as emperor between 100 AD and 200 AD as this will follow an alternate history like timeline. But I do want to make the empire in these books feel alive. Please if anybody can help it will be greatly appreciated.

medieval Latin dosen`t count.

I made the title specific as per the rules of the subreddit, but I'm really just interested in Berber history in general.

World War 2 (or Great Patriotic War) end was celebrated on May 9th in USSR (and in some other countries of the socialist block, e.g. Poland), and is celebrated on that date in all post-soviet countries.

I've heard two explanations for this:

1. It was after midnight Moscow-time when the surrender was signed on May 8th in Berlin, so it is technically ended on May 9th for Soviets.

2. Stalin wanted to separate Great Patriotic War from World War 2 as much as possible, and wanted their own special celebration, separate from the rest of the world.

Which of these explanations is more likely to be correct? Is there any other explanation?

Not saying anyone's wrong.

Anyways, it seems pretty obscure and random.