I had a quick search and I couldn't find anything that quite answered this. It seems to me, based on books and films, that the field tactics, use of air support and armoured support, used in the Second World War are quite similar to modern tactics, yet those used in WW1 seem utterly antiquated by comparison. Obviously in terms on air and armour, the technology was significantly less advanced during 1914-1919 to make their modern use impossible, but what about infantry tactics?

When did these changes occur? Were they ever "practice's" in another theatre of war? Is my impression of WW1 combat - lines of soldiers emerging from their trenches running towards machine gun fire en masse - simply inaccurate by 1919?

Thanks!

For example, I just recently learned about the bombing of the German town of Dresden by the Allies and I'm wondering what else I've missed.

I mean on the military front.

Given that people, once they've fallen behind in the polls, commonly talk about pulling off an upset that usually fails to happen, I was just wondering if there has ever been such a case in which a candidate managed to pull off a comeback victory.

Hello everyone,

First of all, major props to the mods and the members of this community! Superb content.

My questions:

1)I have read that the Germans "reached" the Volga and were able to shoot at boats coming from the west bank and vice versa. Where exactly did the Germans reach the Volga in Stalingrad? North or South? If possible can you guys pin point it on a map.

2)Why did the German command invest so many men in taking objectives such as the Grain silo and not just reduce it to rubble through air bombardment.

3)Previously to crossing the Don, what kind of resistance did the German army encounter in this gap between the Don and the Volga river?

4. How far east was the luftwaffle able to hit the Red army, meaning, how far could luftwaffle go beyond the Volga and how effective were these runs?

5)Besides the grain silo what were other "hard" fought over points like Pavlov's house and the square?

6)Sub question not exactly pertaining to Stalingrad. What exactly was the "commissar" system in the Soviet Union? What was its point?

Thank you very much in advance!

Were they anything close to the romantic tales of awe inspiring swordsmanship? How much better were they compared to your footman?

[Serious] I've been a history fanatic my whole live but one question is never answered entirely...

Why did some empires expanded out for no logical reason? Was it greed, power, curiosity or all? Napoleon gave his reasons, which was power (and other things).

When the Mongols spread westward, why the need to go SO FAR? Once all local enemies withing thousands of miles were gone and occupied, why the insistent need to expand?

I can see Adolf Hitler's drive to restore the Prussian Empire, and Russia's need to protect itself from invasion, but what about lesser empires of old? It just doesn't seem logical to try and occupy a good part of the globe knowing it can't be governed. It not only seems ridiculous to try, but big question is 'why'? Even the Roman empire would be an example of being too large and spread too thin.

Such as hoplites is οπλίτες, homophobia is ομοφοβία etc. If the pronunciation of the word in Greek is without an H sound, why is there one in English?

It's strange that so many people live with glasses and/or contacts these days.

In the far distant past, before the invention of the modern set of glasses, specifically with the height of the Roman empire (ie- post Augustus Caesar, pre-Diocletian), do we have any evidence that people managed and dealt with their ocular issues in any beneficial ways?

Or is bad vision only an aspect of an affluent modern society?

As an undergrad I wrote a book review for England in the Age of American Revolution by Sir Lewis Namier. The work was part of an ultimately unfinished series, with the narrative ending Part I in the 1760's if I remember correctly. It was a dense read, complex, and comprehensive. Has anyone ever finished this work? Do historians often or ever do this, or would this be taboo?

It seems physically more practical.

Was there any sort of synchronous "Celtic tradition" similar to what was shared by Anglo-Saxons, continental Germanic peoples, and the Norse?

Assuming they weren't part of organizations that were later labelled a criminal organization (though I am aware that former members of the Waffen SS petitioned the West German government to honour their pension obligations).