I'm after recommendations for some good historical fiction on the Roman Republic or Empire (or even the Byzantines). I enjoyed Conn Iggulden's Julius Caesar series, though I'd prefer something a bit more historically accurate.

I also enjoyed Harry Sidebottom's series, which certainly had a more authentic feel, though my knowledge of that later period is worse than sketchy.

I learned recently that there were many reassessments of the French Resistance over time as more information came out. For example the view of the Resistance immediately after the war needed to be reassessed when Robert Paxton released his book on Vichy France and once again with the (more recent) discovery of the enigma machine's role in WWII. What are some examples of reactions to the French resistance by historians and how this changed over time as more information has come out?

Tornados seem to be regional occourances. I am wondering how far back the tales and records of these events go. Thanks.

Especially in places where for example roman aquaducts where still there?

I hope it's not a stupid question, but why did armies in history, ever need to siege? Wouldn't it be easier to just circle a castle/fortress, attack the nearest settlements and wait for the fortification to starve out?

I know this has been done, but what advantages would sieging pose against the above mother? Are there cases when it becomes a more viable/efficient method of conquering?

More specifically what were their formations, tactics and equipment like during the second Celtiberian war? Because in a work of fiction that took place in that time it sounded a lot like some sort of pike formation and there was no mention of shields, which doesn't sound like the classic Legionnaire who primarily uses his gladius and relies a lot on his shield. Also afaik the Romans used spears more for throwing than for melee.

I'm mostly confused because the book was written by a historian so either I'm completely off on my idea of Roman warfare in that period or he fucked up really bad.

I was wondering why the Wehrmacht Help the US Army at the end of WW2 to fend off the attack Castle Itter.

Hi all! I am reposting this question as it was a bit too vague the first time around (I apologize for that..) Anyways, a bit of background: I have been playing an Assassins Creed game and it is in 16th century Constantinople. More specifically, 1511 AD. The game is of course, a game and so not the most accurate. That being said, this time period and locale intrigues me. 16th century Constantinople is rarely heard about say, in comparison to Renaissance Italy or Ancient Greece. If you wouldn't mind, please tell me more about the following:

• What was the culture like? Ie; What was the predominant religion, what did their entertainment or casual life consist of? Arts? Music? Plays?
• What were some of the conflicts in that time period in that immediate area? I know the Ottoman Empire was so vast and that time period is vague and broad, so say from 1500-1525.

Thanks in advance! If there's something I need to clarify or expand on let me know, or if you are unable to answer something that's okay too. That's what google is for, but I trust you guys more. :P

I remember reading in Charles C. Mann's book, "1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created", about the after-effects of the "Columbian Exchange" (i.e. all the effects, including biological, of the New World and Old World meeting). It goes something like this:

• Africans developed resistances to many mosquito-borne diseases.

• Whites / Native Americans / Others not so much.

• Mosquitos carrying such diseases were prolific in the New World (Was this since always, or only after the Exchange?)

• African slaves, as opposed to other slaves of other races/regions, were able to survive and work the fields with much lower mortality. Thus the specific demand for African slaves.

• The latitude (climate variation) at which mosquitos carrying such diseases do not survive as well is roughly around the Mason-Dixon line.

• Thus the difference and support for African slavery in the South?

What do you think?

I'm coming to this question after reading the introduction of the American Revolution wiki, which says:

For prominent land speculators and colonists such as Daniel Boone, motivation for independence manifested itself in a desire to occupy the ten million acres of rich potential farming lands west of the Appalachian Mountains, which the British Crown had reserved to allow the Native Americans tribes to practice their traditional way of life in 1763.

I'm curious, because when looking at soldiers from these time periods I can only think of soldiers trained to fight in large formations. I know "ancient times" is a large window but I mainly mean everything pre-medieval.

In the American cemeteries here in France, I noticed that about 60% of the families opted to have their sons sent home. Who paid for it?

This question can also apply to most of north-central europe i think