I'm reading Max Hasting's Inferno and it got me wondering. By military ships I mean ships with guns, like battleships and such.

EDIT:

I concede the point.

I think this is important for a couple reasons:

• This subreddit will likely prove to be, itself, a historical record for people in the future. (i.e. "What did people think during the decentralization-era about the Roman Empire?")
• It is possible that some subset of deleted content is marginally-close to breaking/making the rules and the bump in either direction (to delete or not delete) is a reflection of some internal bias (even if unconscious) of the mod.

The strict nature of the rules, and the brutal hand of the mods in this subreddit have no doubt been integral to the stunning success of this sub.

That being said, I feel like integrity can be maintained with the following changes to the rules:

• Some subset of comments that are currently being deleted will instead be marked by either "cogent speculation" or "personal anecdote"
• comments that are "marked" will always fall below unmarked posts using custom CSS

And, in order to keep things under control, the following limitations can be placed upon the two new types of allowed posts

• A anecdotes and speculation must be labeled as such by the submitter of the comment. (ie unnmarked speculation would be subject to the same deletion policy that currently exists)

• Speculative posts must be supported by evidence in the form of references and/or a cohesive logical argument and justification for lack of histiographical standards. (that is, they must answer why their answer lacks the level of evidence of first class answers).

• Anecdotal comments at the top level are only allowed if there are no other similar anecdotes at the top level; otherwise they must be a child of the first similar anecdote.

Re-wording this so that hopefully I am not breaking rule #2, as a similar post was deleted earlier.

I would like some insight form some folks who are more knowledgeable on this topic than I who have access to non-biased sources that can comment further on the extent to which the Long March can be considered a success from a military point of view, perhaps drawing on other parallels in military history.

From my understanding, it seems as if the Long March was not really a success from a military point of view, even if the Communist leadership was able to escape encirclement by the KMT, based on the extent of the loss of forces and territory and the inability to gain meaningful ground against the KMT as a result of the maneuver.

With this in mind, is the idea of the Long March being a great strategic retreat essentially propaganda from the CPC? To what extent do objective observers consider the Long March the key to eventual Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War?

I'm no expert on Britain under so feel free to correct any assumptions I make the are way off.

An element of British society became Romanised whilst it was a province of Rome. Their soldiers fought abroad, they paid taxes, they participated in the Roman economy. Villas and urbanisation were widespread. Once the Roman rule collapsed there was attempts to hold together this Romano-British society that ultimately failed.

However what I've never been clear on is whether there was ever a discrete frontier between "Roman" areas and "Briton/Celtic" areas. The Iceni were made into a tributary civitas and had an established capital- yet they don't seem Romanised. However Londinium was a major Roman city with forum, temples, legionary fort. Who lived there? People who abandoned their tribes for civilisation? Roman immigrants?

Another complicating factor is that there are Roman villas throughout England, including on land supposedly part of the Iceni's territory. So were they Iceni who decided to go full-Roman and build themselves a villa, or Romans who somehow took their land? Did they pay rent, or was it won in conquest, or what?

Did the tribes live and just avoid getting in the Roman's way when they wanted a road or city in their territory or was there some arbitration process?

I was watching the movie Troy yesterday, did that ever really happen? The best soldiers against each other to avoid bloodshed and whatnot? Thanks!

An awesome novella, by the way. I highly recommend it to anyone with a couple hours to spare. Charles Dickens was the man.

As for the questions...

Ebenezer Scrooge was a money lender. How was this profession viewed at the time of the book's writing in 1843?

Bob Cratchit made 15 shillings a week. Can we compare this to a modern income? What was the job of a "clerk" like in the mid 1800s?

How was Christmas viewed as a holiday in the mid 1800s? Was it as big of a deal as today? Was Ebeneezer really a scrooge or are we just viewing him from the lens of the modern world that has made a big deal of the holidays?

To clarify, how has religion influenced the United States up until the end of Reconstruction?

Were there social or institutional factors that caused this difference? Was it solely due to the use of alphabetic versus logographic script?

Thanks!

Anything that I should be aware of before reading?

I looked it up a bit, and everything I've seen says that that didn't happen, and that it was a primarily peaceful (or as peaceful as it could be at the time) and gradual conversion. However, its possible ive missed aomething. She also makes the claim that the "snakes" that St. Patrick drove out of Ireland were the Pagans. Is this true?