I remember once I answered a question, and one of the sources I cited was Charles Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages, and I thought "I'm not sure how I feel about citing century-old scholarship which has only held up partially under later scrutiny."

I'm wondering: are there any particular sources that you see used to answer a fair amount on this subreddit that make you think "Why are people still citing this? Its central thesis was refuted in the 1970s (or whatever)," or "Why do people ever cite this? It was fraudulent / sloppy from the start," or any other ways in which sources can be bad?

(Is Oman a good example of a bad source?)

the civil rights movement was noted for their peace, correct? How much violence did the protestors enact previous to the cops brutalizing the protestors in their acts of violence?

Let's assume this is between the US Army, comparing conscripted and modern day enlisted infantry.

Put differently, if the amount of classical works that survive today is X, what is the ratio to those that are lost? 100X? 1000X?

By 'lost' I mean that no surviving copies exist and that at most only small fragments of the original text are cited. By 'classical' I'm trying to limit it to Roman and Greek works of antiquity.

I know there are catalogs of works that we know of but don't have, and in that sense the estimation I'm after is simple. BUT surely there are also lost works we know nothing about?

In statistics, it's common to try and estimate the number of unknowns from what we do know (e.g. estimate the number of large unknown sea creatures given how many were discovered so far). Has anyone tried to apply this to the question of lost literary works?

Hello

I was reading a book about Soviet military history. Medals like "Hero of the soviet union" was mentioned as being awarded for great deeds in battle.

Did this medal come with any additional (material) benefits apart from the honor? What about other Soviet medals for warfare or worker related honors?

I've really been enjoying reading through "Undaunted Courage" by Stephen E. Ambrose. I've also been in love with Patrick O'Brian's "Aubrey Maturin Adventures"

I want to learn more about Captain Cook's voyages, but there are so many books out there and I dont want to get one that someone just self published and wound up on the History channel talking about aliens building the pyramids.

To the best of my limited knowledge, telegrams were the only way to send long distance messages. People would go the the telegram office and write their message and an operator would send it through the telegraph. Was knowledge of how to use Morse code common back then or was it reserved for those who used it regularly?

It was a Nazi ally and it was a fascist regime. How come anyone did do anything to oust the regime?

I've noticed some startling parallels between Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, particularly regarding reincarnation/metempsychosis, infinity, and enlightenment through purification. Did these notions develop independently? Or is there historical evidence that the two civilizations were sharing ideas?

I know Bede adorned the the north wall of the Wearmouth monastery with images from Revelation, but I would love to know if anybody knows of some other similar examples.

Thanks

I think the movie is very realistic, and was wondering how realistic it actually is. I only had my doubts when I saw that a Tiger 1 (German tank) was moving while firing its 88. I have read (can't find the source!) that it could do great damage to the panzer. And I think Brad Pitt's haircut might be anachronistic. Also, is it common that allied soldiers used/stole the German STG44 in combat?

I would like to use/recommend it as a teacher (altough it's very graphic) someday for its (possible) historical accuracy. It might give them great insight into the life of a soldier in WW2.

For those who haven't seen Fury. The movie is about a tank (named Fury) and it's crew during the final chapter of World War 2 in Europe. The crew fights in Germany against Wehrmacht, child soldiers and the (in the movie much hated) SS. Also I feel like it portraits the mental struggles in warfare really well. It is very graphic.

Who are they, where are they from, how did they get there and what were they like (what are they like?)

I am reading Davie's Europe: A History, and I have trouble find adeguate maps, could you please help me?

Hey Guys,

this weekend i started to watch the Youtube Series "The Great War". I don't know the educational value of it, but its entertaining and i find the concept of the week by week "realtime" coverage very interesting.

But one, or maybe two, big questions are arising as i'm watching.

The first one is the one is the one in the title. I did my Abitur in Germany with history up to the 12th grade. But i all was taught, or at least remeber, is that Germany, or the Kaiser, wanted his place among the big Empires. Thats it. Now trough the Youtbe Series i learned that Germany's military wanted a war with Russia prior to 1917(?) or they would be unbeatable. Ok, so far so good. But what were the plans for a full out victory? They promised to england to not annex any continental lands of France. Were there plans to annex a big part of russia? Or was to beat the russian army all that they wanted? Sure the problem of an "unbeatable" russia would have arrrsed again? Or were they counting on throwing the russian empire into disarray, like it happened towards the end?

The second might be a bit tricky. I noticed throughout "The great war" that they are starting to paint a bad picture of germany in the war, and i'm not talking about the atrocities in belgium. Sometimes it seems that they are almost on a WW2 level of evil in the portrayal. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Germany was the leading culture in europe prior to WW1, or at least on a good way to becoming it. Important people went to Berlin to study, science and culture were on a high and suddenly they are talking about "the bad thing that would happen if Germany won the war". I'm guessing a big part is, that Germany was leading a war of aggression, at least in the eyes of the triple entente, and there is no denying of belgium. BUt were there really bad things to happen? This ties in to my first question about the goals of germany. Was it just the fear of losing power of the other empires that germany was seen as "the huns" and we still perceive them as the bad guys (at least in popular opinion), when prior to july everyone was looking at Berlin and Germany was culturally striving?

I'm a bit confused. WW1 is greatly overlooked in german education and in general. We bear the cross of WW2 that we seem to forget WW1. All the average german knows is that there was big war prior to WW2, the peace treaty was the reason for the rise Nazism and we got that one book "All quiet on the western front" that nobody read, but there is this boring movie to. Honestly, after school i knew more about the Franco-Prussian-War than WW1.

Thanks in advance for all answers.

Why were the slaves Africans? Why did they simply kill the Indians and/or push them off the land? Why not make slaves of them? Obviously a lot of the Spanish conquistadors figured out how to enslave the natives. Why didn't the French and British do the same?