Why is it that Engels gets far less credit and remembrance for the creation and development of Communism than Karl Marx? He co-authored the Communist Manifesto, and edited volumes of Das Kapital, but somehow he's the forgotten man.

I'm interested in emigration patterns throughout the USSR's lifecycle. I know many people ran BEHIND the Iron Curtain, but history seems to focus on the those running out. Who chose to live in the Soviet sphere, why did they, and when did they?

I asked this in ELI5 but I'm unsatisfied with the answers and was looking for something a little more academic.

1. How did they manage to feed everyone!?
2. What did they eat?
3. What foods did they bring with them?
4. How was it decided who would eat what? Who was in charge of rationing or deciding to go into storage wares? How was this organised?
5. Did anyone cook?
6. What food preparations had to be made before a campaign? How did they plan out how much to bring?

For example, did they (ostensibly) have to go through a sort of 'checklist' before attacking a target (like today's Western armies; verbal warning, warning shot, minimum application of force etc)?

Or was it as straightforward as "See target? Go for it"?

EDIT: Thanks for the answers everyone! The only downside is that, for whatever reason, you're compelling me to go on an 'ancient Greek' reading binge. I feel like I've barely scratched the surface with the Romans and already you're distracting me!

My understanding is that the top ranked graduates have first pick of assignments. I had heard that during the Viet Nam War, bottom ranked graduates pretty much got front line infantry, which I expect would be more dangerous than, say, a Pentagon posting. If true, this does seem like quite an incentive for good study habits.

Besides Japan, I can not find any texts about how tattoos and people who had tattoos were treated back in day. Specifically I would like to know more about Vietnam but all information would be good, examples of them would be even better.

I remember reading once that the reason that churches were designed in the shape of the cross was not initially as a reference to the Crucifixion, but because Roman Army Barracks were the first churches by decree of the state.

It referenced the idea that the congregation was akin to lines of soldiers sleeping areas, with the altar being the area reserved for the General (who later took on the role of priest/bishop in the outer colonies for the new state religion), and the two wings were the armory and pantry for the army.

Thus, as the state needed to consolidate its empire with its new religion, they simply turned all barracks into churches, and the form 'stuck' through history thereafter.

I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet, so I figured someone out here can help clear this up for me.

At the time of WW1 both Australia and Canada were quite small countries population wise but they contributed a greatly disproportionate amount of forces to fight in Europe and as a regard they lost a very high amount of soldiers, something on the order of over 1% of their total populations lost.

I know there were of course deep ties to the UK however these two nations were really under no physical risk of danger from Germany. It's hard to picture how at a certain point that fact wouldn't take precedence over the amount soldiers being sent out and lost?

Were they disrespected for being cowards or did people not mind?

My lecturer contends that a Total War Economy is one where a state will take total control over a nation's economy and gear it to one goal that of maximising output, efficiency and quality for the purpose of war.

He says that Britain entered this in 1941 with the Battle of Britain but Germany only enters it in 1943 after Stalingrad which is why they lost the war since they could not and didnt have enough output to win against the forces arrayed against them

In the Philippi episode of HBO's Rome there's a battle scene showing the chaos of a battle after the initial attack. General Marc Antony is asked what's going on and he saying something along the lines of "I have no idea" in a tone like that was the norm.

How much of a battle's outcome relied on active commanding by the General? Did he play a huge role in positioning of units and tactics during the middle of the battle?

Not sure if this is the right subreddit for this. If not please link to the correct subreddit. A little background on this question: My mother's family has always prouded itself on its Irish heritage to an extreme amount. They are heavily involved in the Catholic church, their diet, superstitions all fit the stereotypical 4th/5th generation Irish immigrant family. Yet my mom and I did genealogy DNA testing earlier this year and found we barely had any Irish DNA (4% for my mother) and in fact were primarily English (73% for my mother). Why would an English family try so hard to be Irish in an era that detested Irish?

Thank you

EDIT: Thanks for the replies I've learned alot and your comments have helped look at this in a whole other light.

I'd always thought of the Chinese Empire's decline as being a simple case of stagnation while other powers grew in prominence and eclipsed it. But my experience of studying history has shown that such changes are never quite as straightforward as they appear. What were the processes that caused China to be in such a poor state relative to the centuries of practically proverbial supremacy it had had in the past?