Were any engineering ideas 'borrowed' from other empires or was it all original engineering concepts?

I ask because you guy are the best and always have ideas.

To expand, what tactics were used? Equipment? Did the Romans try to attack large towns in the region first? How did these assaults go and was the losses usually high? What paths did the Romans take for the invasion route?

Does anyone have any academic or other "legitmate" sources for evidence? A Google search just brought up a bunch of religous sites, I want something more intelluctually supportable.

It seems lately that there's been a lot of discussion on reddit recently on whether the Irish famine was a genocide. It made me wonder what historians consider the official first genocide. The systematic, intentional killing of a certain race seems pretty modern.

I don't mean to imply that every medieval Christian was anti-Jewish, by the way.

Just something that I've been wondering for quite a while. What theories existed?

There are stories about Roman emperor Caligula that say he's crazy, like that he wanted his favorite horse to become consul or that he started a war against Neptune.

I know that most of these stories are written by Suetonius, who lived a century later and wrote for the Flavian emperors, so I'm quite sure not everything about Caligula is right. I also once read that the Neptune war was a misunderstanding because the slang word for [something] was the Latin word for shell, but I can't find that source anymore.

I have to go to my old high school to show the pupils that history and historical research can be fun too, but my professor on ancient history is in another country for a few months so I can't ask him. I already found some interesting websites, but I want to make sure I have the best sources.

My question is: what sources and secondary literature are reliable to prove or disprove the craziness of emperor Caligula, except for Suetionus' translated texts? Thanks!

Whenever I see people bring up Jared Diamond in these threads, he seems to get discredited for his views on geography's primary role in shaping human progress. I tend to agree with many of his points, and I want to get the opposing point of view so that I can have a more informed outlook.

From what I've gathered, people think his theories reduce the possibility of human free will and individual potential. Is this correct?

i have absolutely no knowledge of south american history, are there any good introductory books. I have a broad interest from early colonisation to revolution in the 20th century. Anything more specific about Argentinian revolution and che gavara would be cool. thanks :D

It is used for jewelry and of course gold bars and coins are the ultimate sign of wealth. Why? Just because it is shiny?

Apparently these Central Asian nations have a bit of a confusing nationalism and "national history" in general. I'm just curious what led these parts of the USSR to becoming independent nation states rather than remaining a part of Russia. Was there popular uprisings like in Europe?

I was wondering if any Asian or Islamic historians had any tips for remembering names/places.

I have been trying to read more about Chinese and Islamic history recently but find myself getting confused by the similarity of the names to my American ear. I am sure this is just because I was raised with Western history so don't have a frame of reference. I bet John Markson and Mark Johnson would be confusing if I wasn't American but that doesn't make it less frustrating.

Does anyone have any tips/advice on things that helped them or is it just keep reading and it will start to make sense eventually?

I assume that the Sahara served as a treacherous boundary that prevented the ancients from establishing trade routes between North Africa and sub-Sahara. Did that lack of cultures intermixing result in a very distinct and socially contrasted north vs sub-Sahara?

Hi, I am taking a course on Japanese history starting in January and wanted to bounce some ideas off of r/askhistorians. From the reading I have done I have found that there are three main themes that contributed to the Japanese motive. It seems that contemporary historians suggest that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in order to cripple the American fleet and draw the US into the war. Some revisionists seem to argue that Japan was forced to attack Pearl because of the oil embargoes. They suggest that Japan had tried to come to a peaceful agreement with the US but were unable to achieve this because of US aggression. Personally I cannot see how the Pearl Harbor attack can be examined as an isolated incident? Surely the attack belongs in the context of the wider Japanese expansionist policy (although I am yet to find a source that agrees with this). I was wondering what r/askhistorians thought of these ideas? Could you possibly recommend some books to read? Or even sharing your thoughts on Pearl would be great. Thanks

We know that during the Pacific Theatre of WW2, China suffered massive losses against the Japanese, and could barely afford to make the most basic weapons.

How could it afford the money, knowledge and technology to make nuclear weapons by 1960s?