My only real exposure is from brief coverage by Dower in "War Without Mercy". The picture painted there is of an occupying force that came in preaching pan-Asianism, and initially even offering improvement, but quickly falling into a racial superiority complex and lording over the local population as inferior children. I'd love to know more specifics though.

Also, what happened to the rest of the Palaiologos family? It seems that the dynasty just disappeared after Andreas' death.

I know this is probably a throughout history question, but it's also a question on historiography.

What would a peaceful time have been like? In every book about the world, the result and reasons of war are always heavy at hand. They're either the causes, or the results. The how and why of history seems to forever rotate around the factor of war. Empires and dynasties are always falling, rising, stagnant, losing, winning, conquering, or being conquered. But how exactly would these events have affected the vast majority of the population. Aside from the 0.00001% of the population that were leaders, would the common people have been able to perceive peace and prosperity? A warring age or a peaceful age?

It seems that in the modern world, at least for first world nations, and even countries as large as China, the events of world politics seem inconsequential. It doesn't matter who goes to war, it's always somewhere else, and it doesn't matter who becomes leader, because life goes on, and it's always someone else doing the winning and losing. That's probably the perception of world events from an average person nowadays. Aside from moments like 9/11 or the occasional oddity like Russian influence on Crimea, world events seem oddly inconsequential. Would a person in the Roman empire have thought of wars as a distant thing at some point, and felt more concerned about the ongoings of his own life? Would a landowner from the Song Dynasty have been concerned of the various steppe nomad incursions on his home country? Or would it have been a "same old" type of situation? I mean it's happened so many times you'd think people would have gotten used it right?

I'm looking for video of the full 43:14 speech. I see that there are a couple of excerpts and such on YouTube.

If so, does it still exist and can I find it online? I have already obtained the audio from archive.org.

The persians supposedly had up to 250,000 men at one point in their invasion of the Greek States.

The problem is, how did the Persian Empire feed all these troops? I don't recall reading any accounts of major starvation that killed thousands of persians, and yet it seems like foraging would have done little for the Persian Army, due to its vast size and tiny population of Greece.

Land transport also seems unlikely due to the vast distance the army traveled to get to Greece.

Were food and water supplies transferred to the armies by supply ships?

I've read that they definitely wanted a buffer zone for defense in depth, no debate there. But they had a buffer zone.

However, was the Soviet Union ever seriously trying to setup the necessary set-pieces for an invasion of Western Europe? What have documents declassified from Soviet Archives revealed about this? Why was the US so concerned about a Soviet invasion of Western Europe?

And the aftermath of them as well.

I've always been fascinated by all things medieval. i've played games like Medieval: Total War and i've been a massive fan of Game of Thrones and Lord of The Rings because of it and i frequent quite a few medieval festivals.

But onto my question: I've always enjoyed the battles. When i've watched them part of me has wanted how they do work in terms of organisation. Its always fascinated me how people made do without instant communication, but what i want to know is how did each soldier know where their regiment was on the battlefield, and how did the regiments know where their commander wanted them to be, and how did orders get across? Thank you in advance to whoever enlightens me :)

A little bit of a different question but hopefully it's still classed as history, I'm not too sure. What is the history of people knowing that they are living things & that their life wouldn't last forever? How has society evolved around the concept of "being alive"? Historically what are some well known positive/negative reactions "being alive"? What were society's views' on this?

I'm assuming this would possibly go back to Greek-Antiquity where Philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Empedocles, Parmenides, Protagoras... The academics of the age would start to question & test reality to see what could & couldn't be done? Am I right in thinking this? How long has it been thought that humanity will end?

Is there anything that you could recommend I read to fully understand or just get a better insight into the history of this concept? Thanks :)

I'm curious to learn about the advent and history of telecommunications infrastructure. I've found a couple websites just googling around but I figured I'd ask y'all.

A Question from the Tumblr! The user asks:

After watching Fury and reading about the M26 Pershing I noticed one of the changes from those era tanks to the modern MBTs is the removal of an "alternate driver" from the tank crews. Do y'all know why? My working theory is its a cost cutting measure but perhaps I'm too cynical and it was simply ruled out as unnecessary by combat experience.

I will admit that my knowledge of the period is not extensive, but from what I do know, it seems that the war of the roses was a civil war of sorts, but it is not called that. Why is this?

I imagine the benefits for engine-based whaling outweighed the high initial cost of transitioning from sail, but I would love to hear more about this transition.

Were there hold-outs who clung to sail, or was it universally seen as a beneficial transition? Were some locations, like New England, faster to make the transition? What were the drawbacks to engine-based vessels compared to the older sail models?

It seems like there were many different tank platforms used by Germany during World War 2, and every tank had multiple variants, in addition to different types of tank destroyers and assault guns based upon each. It seems massively inefficient compared to the simple (relatively) mass use of T-34s or Shermans backed up by a small number of heavy tanks like IS-2s and such. Any particular reason behind this?