The sack of Carthage after one of the Punic wars seemed particularly brutal when Carthage couldn't pay them, but why wouldn't Carthage build a land based empire in North Africa? Did they try before or were there other reasons as to why this never happened?

He died in the late 80's, and i never met him. But I'd like to learn more about the type of fighting he might have seen. He never wanted to talk about details to my father so he doesn't know much either. Just found this sub not too long ago, and hope to find something out about it. I've wondered this my entire life

Edit 1: I might try and upload his manual with a timestamp he has, it's a Sherman tank 'owners' manual. It still says classified and i don't think it's legal to have but I'll be damned if it's not amazing to look at.

EDIT 2! : Found out a lot about my grandfather. My parents dug up his autobiography, which gave me many answers but even more questions. He "Was assigned to a new outfit named the 656th tank destroyer battalion, a branch of the 9th armoured division. Our primary training was to seek and destroy Enemy Tanks and other armour, our secondary training since we were equipped with heavy guns {1st 75mm cannon mounted on halftrack vehicles}". This goes on for pages, and I will upload when my phone isn't dead.

I've read countless times that the triarii were used after the other units were broken in a battle because they were the most heavily armed and most veteran units in the legion and thus the most likely to route the enemy troops. What confuses me, however, is why they would not be deployed on the front lines in an attempt to break the enemy immediately, rather than used only in dire situations.

Being heavily armored, I would think that they would take less losses than their hastaati and principe counterparts, so why "sacrifice" those men?

Bonus question: I have also read that they were the "oldest and wealthiest" in the army. What would the average triarii's age be and how would their wealth compare to, say, a member of the hastaati?

Thank you!

Prior the the Civil Rights Act of the mid 60s the use of perjorative speech when speaking of others of a different social/racial/ethnic/economic status was very common. Politician, MDs, College Professors, Lawyers, Corporate Office and most of the general population could pepper there speech with such language and very seldom get negative feed back or rebuke for the language used when speaking with members of their own class. What is a timeline for this change of acceptable usage?

I recently read something interesting about the history of the use of the word "peasant" to describe Chinese, for lack of a better term, small scale agriculturalists. Essentially, the word was for a long time not used because Chin was viewed as outside the historical progression that characterized European history, and it isn't until the rise of Chinese Communism that "peasant" was widely used as a way of applying Marxist analysis to rural conditions.

This made me interested in the many different ideological "traps" contained in that word, and am curious what exact use people make of the term today and how they distinguish the peasant from the small scale agriculturalist.

Were scared and seemingly-untrained soldiers sent directly to the front, experiencing battle within a very short time of arrival?

Were the new Soviet soldiers simply corralled like scared cattle and sent into battle or was there a sense of order and patriotism from the recruits?

Were they often attacked as they crossed the Volga?

Were there often desertions when the Soviet soldiers saw what they were up against?

Were soldiers experiencing daily combat or was there a sort of rotation period to safe areas?

Were there any safe areas?

And how did Germans feel about mowing down waves upon waves of Soviet soldiers?

Specifically the period between the reign of Diocletian and the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Often a conflict isn't ended the first time a party attempts to negotiate peace. Given the massive casualties on all sides during the conflict, were there any attempts at peace prior to the final settlement?

.

I am finally about to buy some art - likely reproductions of illuminated manuscripts. However, I would first like to know what I am looking at as much as possible. Ideally, this book(s) should go into variations in style by time/region, some discussion of chemistry, imagery that it post-Biblical but pre-Modern - what's up with the snakes, peacocks, etc. through the eyes of the monks in their scriptorium. A discussion of language would also be appreciated. I have a bit of high school Latin, but cannot just look at a page of 8th century insular script and make out much.

I've had a look at AskHistorians' book list, and it is very good, but offers little specific to my new interest. I am definitely getting A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600 based on you guys' recommendation, but something more specific would be appreciated.

how did it?

The British economy suffered from stagnation and recession for a large part of this period, were the causes long term or different throughout?

I've read a lot about the battle of Berlin right before Germany's surrender, but I'd like to know what other territory they controlled at the time of their surrender, and what assets they had to defend it.

Are there any existing examples of verses of the Quran etched onto pieces of armor?

Are there any testimonies of verses being etched onto armor? And if so, what were commong verses that were used?

For the sake of being strict to the rules, we can say what percentage in 1990 if necessary.

We've all heard that Australia started as a prison colony, but how much of that still remains, surely there were other colonists and what not that lead to it being a first world country.

If the answer is "most of them" because of math. Then maybe a better question would be what is the average "percentage criminal" of an Australian citizen (so if one grandparent was a "criminal" that'd be 25%)

Sorry if this is offensive to Australians.

Hey there /r/AskHistorians!

I'm a writer currently writing a story about a polar explorer, loosely based off of some of the stories told by Peter Freuchen in his book, Vagrant Viking. I want to make it as accurate as possible. What are some common things an explorer in the early 1900s would have carried with them and on their person? Was it common for anyone to go exploring on their own?