Would people think that it was okay to say that Rome eventually lost, and not try to find some way of saying that the empire survived in some form or another? Or would they try to associate their culture and nation with that of the the Roman empire?

Obviously, there is the Holy Roman Empire, but that doesn't speak for what England thought about the Saxons or Huns. Would they be okay with saying that the Barbarians eventually beat the Roman Empire?

Almost everyone who loves knowledge, history and understanding the birth of humanity's great cultures will be horrified by pictures of IS reducing ancient statues to powder in occupied areas of Iraq. What historical knowledge is being destroyed along with these artefacts, aside from the very obvious loss to humanity of the sheer visual impact of them, and what kinds of pre-Islamic civilisations do/did they represent?

Finally, is there anything to be said for why they are destroying symbols of these specific civilisations (with reference to, say, evidence about the origins of Islamic belief that they may find unpalatable), or is this just about destruction of "idols" of any belief system?

I have heard varying opinions. The only thing keeping me from saying yes is that he unified German to further his conservative government's cause, not really because he thought all German speakers should be united.

This is an extreme example, but for example Hitler starts off Mein Kampf by mentioning that Austria and Germany ought to be unified, even if it had negative economic repercussions. Bismarck wouldn't have done that, he thought of things more logically and rationally. What do you guys think?

I recently watched a talk by Lord Powell, Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, and he said that the Cold War was won because Thatcher and Reagan decided to go on the offensive. Obviously this is nothing new to the debate, but I was wondering whether other causes such as the impact of Gorbachev are equally or more valid reasons for the Cold War ending.

I know this isn't a question of much consequence, but this is very interesting to me. I'm a composer, and I set some of these short fragments to voice and guitar when I need a break from some of my bigger compositions. I notice many references to "the black earth" throughout. Is this just a result of translation, a poetic device of Sappho, a common way to refer to the earth back then, or is there no real answer?

edit: My title should have said, "Why was Moscow/Russia the first sedentary nation to conquer the Steppe?"

In The Russian Steppe Frontier, the author Michael Khodarkovsky says that Russia conquered the Steppe by using clever economic/trade policies that created a cycle of dependency. He describes the process as:

• Russia uses trade and tribute to dissuade nomads from raiding the frontier

• Russia favors pro-Russian Khans and Begs which divides internal loyalties.

• Russia built fortification lines that hemmed-in and impoverished their Steppe neighbors, making them more reliant on Russian trade and tribute.

If this is how Russia conquered the Steppe, why had no other nation done it before? Couldn't the various Chinese or Persian dynasties have conquered the Steppe the same way? Why do a lot of people credit firearms to defeating Eurasian nomads instead of Russia's policies?

I've come across this notion several times over the years, and I'm trying to obtain a solid historical citation if possible.

One example of this story (by Leo Buscaglia) reads: "Ancient Egyptians believed that upon death they would be asked two questions and their answers would determine whether they could continue their journey in the afterlife. The first question was, 'Did you bring joy?' The second was, 'Did you find joy?'"

I would like to know if Napoleon had any impact on further warfare during the 19th and 20th. Were there any generals who admired, based their tactics on Napoleon. Is there leading generals from the last 200 years who have said that they looked up to Napoleon ?

Thanks to anyone who could help me with this question

Recently there has been talk of the US arming certain governments or organizations to support its interests, but from what I’ve seen supporting one side of a civil war with arms and training tends to have unintended consequences in the long term.

Even the proxy wars that did succeed in the short term, such as An example of this is the US arming and training of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 80s, which led to a civil war in which the Taliban took control and then oppressed its people and created a terrorist haven.

(Edit: I realized now that I misphrased this. I wrote this quickly and didn't mean to say that all American proxy wars were like this specific event.)

Has the US ever meddled in an already contentious region and achieved all of its goals? If so, what made this case successful as opposed to other failures?

I say this because the ass revolution brought by "baby got back" sparked a newfound interest in butts

I've heard the Israelis attacked first as a premptive strike that was justified by the fact that an alliance of Arabic countries in the region planned to invade them in the near future. Is there any evidence of such a plan or strategy? I am not an Antisemite nor am I looking for a debate about whether Israel was right to strike first but I am curious about this plan.

Considering that most Americans adopted an isolationist sentiment following WWI, how was Congress able to justify passage of this act? I remember reading somewhere that in 1933, 39% of US college males said they'd refuse to fight if drafted, so I'd imagine that their attitudes didn't change in the years that followed.

I don't know a lot about them and was wondering if we had any surviving "major" stories or myth cycles from their culture. Is there anything along the lines of Homer, Volsunga Saga, the Heracles stories, Snorri, Ramayana, etc. surviving from their culture?