I've been studying ancient Greek history and found their constant colonizing of Italy, Sicily, Ionia, North Africa, Scythia, etc. to be fascinating. Did other ancient cultures also do this, or was this unique to the Greeks. Also, what was the cause behind this extensive colonization? Thanks!

Sorry if this is worded poorly, but I believe the question makes sense. In my mind, I always imagine Vietnam as being the most brutal, but I don't know any numbers.

Also, if it's not too much trouble I'm also curious which war would have been most likely to kill me as a civilian. I understand most of America's wars have been fought overseas, but the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War obviously caused casualties on our own soil, and my odds of survival could be calculated by taking the total civilian population at the time and finding the fraction of those who were killed as a direct consequence of military action.

For any answers regarding the Civil War, let's assume I'm serving on the Union side.

I have heard that their advancement is over hyped so to speak. I am just seeking more information. Were they actually ahead of the allies, or only in limited areas?

When Sweden and Finland was the same kingdom, how well did Finnish speaking soldiers and, by extension, officers integrate in the army?

• Individually, were they treated the same as Swedish speaking soldiers? If not, how?
• Were there officers who spoke Finnish as first language, how far could they climb? Did they have equal opportunity to Swedes (or Swedish speakers from todays Finland)?
• Would the commanders of said units, if not Finnish speakers themselves, have to learn Finnish? Or was it the other way around?
• How were the general feelings from Finnish speaking soldiers on serving under Swedish speaking officers?
• On a regimental level, were the Finnish ones and Swedish ones handled differently?

Since the Aristocracy was (mainly?) Swedish speaking in what is today Finland, I know of several notable officers from this era from that population. Mind, these are not the people I am interested in. They should have had Finnish as a first language (Swedish as a Second Language is acceptable though). I am especially interested in the period of 1500s to 1750s, with events such as The Thirty Years' Wars, March across the Belts, Great Nordic War, etc.

If you have answers to the questions but about sailors rather than soldiers, I am just as happy to hear it!

Looking forward to reading, if any, answers! Thank you.

I understand that Imperium refers not just military command, but also to political rule as well. What I'm wondering is who was allowed to command armies in the field. I'm assuming the two consuls would, but other offices of the Cursus Honorum hold Imperium. Would a Quaestor or a Praetor be able to command an army in the field? Or was it just the Consuls? And if that is the case, what happened when there were more than two armies to command?

Maybe not the most history-focused question here, but I couldn't figure out a better place to ask.

I'm assuming the Middle East is known as the Middle East to discern it from the Far East. The Near East then, would be Turkey/the Levant (or perhaps even the Balkans/Eastern Europe) - this all being from the perspective of Western Europeans.

I'm wondering how other regions have referred to the Middle East? Does the Middle East distinct itself as a geo-political region? What would say, China, call the Middle East?

From what I've gathered Egypt's settlers and resources were very similar to those in Mesopotamia. So how come Egypt didn't develop a complex society until almost 500 years after Mesopotamia did?

I've been reading these, and I'm not sure what to gain from them besides a great story

Just a wondering thought that I was interested in finding the answer too. And find questions are answered with more variety and depth than If I were to take this to Google. edit: grammar

Was it a corporation? A country? Has that corporation continued on post abolishment? I feel like it became BP or Halliburton.

I guess what I want to know is if he was a cruel person in an age where war and expansionism was more common? Did he condone torture, treat prisoners poorly, or have "dishonorable" practices? How is he viewed now by most Europeans, and particularly French people?

I was just browsing flag colors and was curious if there was any correllation between colors in flags, and noticed a (very surface level, admittedly) correlation, that more wealthy countries typically had blue in their flags (Sweden, Finland, US, UK, Australia, albeit North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad) and was curious if there was a common agreement towards what colors go into flags or maybe better stated, if alliances between countries is brought into consideration with flag designs?

I'd like to apologize if this is a very naive question, but I'd appreciate if this could possibly start as a general discussion of flag design or if that's a topic that has a subreddit, I'd love to hear where to go.

Thanks!

This is just a quick question, I hope. Just research for a story.

In the saga of the People of Laxardal, its mentioned that King Hakon of Norway gave Hoskuld a gold ring, by "drawing [it] from his arm". Was this ring actually drawn from the arm like an armlet/brassard, a ring from one's finger, or something else? What size would it be? Do we have any surviving examples?

Sorry this is a big question I'm just curious why there was never just a single total crushing victory over one nation or the other. Maybe there was and I just don't know it.. Please enlighten me.

I'm just going to say this bit first if this isn't the right place to put this post I will take it down.

I am currently looking into going to college to get a degree in a field in or related to history. I know this isn't the field that you would enter for money or fame, but the number of people who do get degrees in history and struggle to get a job in the field makes me wonder if I am better of putting history as side project rather than a main focus. I see quite a few people in every field who struggle to get into the field of their choice, but it seems that history is basically limited to either becoming a teacher on some level or park guide, and not that I would be disinterested in doing those, but there's a oversupply of people for both of those jobs and aiming for them seems to be a risk for the amount of money and time necessary to do qualify for them.

My main questions would be -

1. If you are employed in the history field in any area do you feel like you have any accomplishments or skills that put you over others for your job?

2. If you are not employed in the field and have a degree in history do you feel that you in retrospect would of chosen a different career path?

3. Do you feel that furthering study in history is itself worth it even if it means that you may not get a job in field?