To be clear, I'm well aware of the fact that Starz' Spartacus turned the sex and violence up to 11. However, the idea that the Romans were particularly decadent and cruel has been around for a long time. So, how much casual murder and rampant sex (including rape) was actually going on, if at all? If it was, during what periods?

While watching the show, one thing I noted was that a character implied that the elite could get away with a lot more in Capua than in "prudish" Rome. Was this true? Was Capua the Las Vegas of the Roman empire?

I often see those messages saying Palestine was never a state, they never had a currency, never fought any wars, never had a president, etc., but people did live there and called it Palestine. Can anyone explain this?

After all, those countries have similar values, cultures, and economic opportunities as the US.

Hello all, I was hoping someone could recommend me either some respectable books or even just some websites on early medieval warfare, i.e composition of armies, logistics, etc. I have two books on Carolingian warfare but they are more focused on the campaigns, not as much the grittier details.

thanks

I'm trying to understand how we got from the situation in WW2, where mass bombing of civilian areas was acceptable (if not uncontroversial) to the present day where, if someone I heard from human rights watch is to be believed, heavy munitions used in populated areas have to be precision guided.

Yet, while I'm sure there's lots of academic work on this, my impression is that the popular consensus has not thoroughly reappraised WW2 bombing campaigns. They tend to be accepted as either necessary or part of the times.

Plus, in the background to all this are nuclear powers who seem to be saying "if we're sufficiently threatened, forget all these rules - we're going to annihilate some cities." These states appear not to have relinquished the right to mass murder to protect their territory or governments.

Here are some specific questions to help guide answers to this broad topic. Don't feel restricted to these though.

• The geneva conventions set the broad legal framework, but how have norms and conventions developed over the half century from WW2 to 1995?
• How much have first, second and third world countries actually followed rules and conventions?
• What are some good concrete examples of actions which have crossed the line, or have been stopped because of their morality or legality?
• This sort of attack can have a range of objectives - damaging civilian morale, damaging the material basis of life, hitting infrastructure, hitting 'dual-use' targets, hitting military targets with a high risk of collateral damage... What has the balance been like between these objectives?
• How has the increasing control of conventional warfare affected nuclear strategy (if at all)?
• Is there a historiography specifically on this subject?

Just a question that popped into my head while revising history

Seems to me before computers and cheap cameras it would have been easy to hide by simply changing names.

I was discussing alternative hair dyes with someone, who pointed out that in Grease one of the Pink Ladies (can't remember her name) has pink hair. Is this an anachronism? Were these hair dyes even available in the 50s/early 60s and if they were, was anybody 'brave' enough at that point to use them?

This is a question I have wondered about and tried to answer for myself for quite a while. What was it that made Europe the ones to spread out, conquer and dominate much of the world from the 1500s?

Some of the ideas I have thought of:

Was it competition between multiple groups, countries and nations that spurred progress and development? But then, all areas and continents of the world, to an extent, competed with their local and regional neighbours.

Was it technology? I mean obviously it was (things like gunpowder and the caravel or battleship) but from early on Europe got many of its ideas from the Middle-East or Asia, what was different about Europe that they could take advantage of certain technologies and ideas better than others?

Was it that the afro-eurasia landmass was connected allowing for easier transferring of ideas, technologies and cultures? But then, what made it different to the Americas, and again, what made it Europe rather than Asia or Africa to become the dominant continent.

Was it the climate and geography, was their something about Europe that made it more ideal than other regions for fostering and developing powerful nations and culture later on?

Was it one, any, none or all of these that led Europe to dominate the world after the 1500s?

At this point I would like to make clear that I am not implying any idea of European superiority. I am simply acknowledging that roughly after the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, they began to settle, conquer or influence much of the world (for better or for worse). It was European methods and ideas that were adopted by much of the world, to this day. I know that is a very broad and general statement, but yes my basic question is what were the parameters, what made Europe different that it, rather than other regions, which may have developed earlier and influenced Europe in the past, come to dominate the world.

tl:dr - Why was it the European countries and cultures that eventually came to dominate and influence our world?

I'm thinking is one of these:

• Better training

• Better equipment

• Better funding

• Fanatiscism

Was it one of these factors or a combination that made Germany so powerful? I.E takeing massive tracts of land in the beginning of the war and fighting most European countries at the same time and doing well against such odds.

Also, would Germany have been WW2's equivalent to today America? in terms of being the dominant military on the planet?

Both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army focused heavily on movement in depth on the operational level, especially in offensive operations, and envelopments of entire armies and fronts were common on the Eastern Front. However, I haven't heard of any large envelopent operation being conducted by the Western Allies in Europe. Is this purely coincidence, or perhaps due to the smaller 0scale of the theatre? Or were the western Allies perhaps more traditional in their conduct of operations?

Is this a new thing or was it always that way? It's always seem weirdly disrespectful to me.

For an assignment, I'm looking for examples of times in history where the ownership of specific artefacts have been debated.

For example, someone discovering an artefact, and then having it being taken away for the purpose of study/documentation, or even just presentation, in perhaps a museum.

I've never actually read either book but I was wondering if anybody could outline the major differences between the contents of both books.

It seems like when one is brought up, the other one is usually brought up for comparison. Opinions seem to be extremely polarized in terms of which book is better.

So I'm not asking which book would be better if I suddenly decided to raise an army and prosecute a war. I'm just interested in the differences between the books.

Also, did they have a history of utilizing them prior to World War II?

Were there other East Asian forces that used similar tactics?