Saw a post on r/mapporn on the habitats of wild boars and started wondering about the zones labeled as „introduced“. quick research showed that the introduction of the species mostly occurred during colonization. what i don’t understand is, why would you choose to import a wild, fairly dangerous animal over domesticated pigs that are easier to handle and bred to give as much useable material as possible? How exactly were the boars transported there?

So, from this period, what I know of is the revolution, napoleon, and that he had a famous tactic of tricking his opponents and attacking divided armys with his while army to get an advantage.

What I want to knwo is what sort of technology was present in battles? What sort of strategies was employed by generals? Was there still cavalry dominating the field or was the gun supreme? How was armies and navies organized? what would a typical battle look like? what was the expected outcome of a war, in terms of what the winner gained and loser lost?

I'm very curious about all of this.

I never understood why would Austria choose Hungary over Germany , I mean Austrians are Germanic people , Hungarian are not and also the culture is very similar, language too . What were the historical motives that made Austria choose Hungary over Germany

How widespread was the usage of the civil ensign of Austria-Hungary?
According to wikipedia it seems like it was never used on land, but only used on some civilian vessels, while in pop-culture and video games you see it used everywhere, almost as the national flag of A-H.
Would I as a person touring Austria-Hungary ever see the iconic civil ensign flag?

To start, I say 'colonies' because the following examples are not Scottish colonies as such but British colonies with large Scottish influence.

The regions of Appalachia in the USA and Antrim in Northern Ireland are some of the most religious parts of their respective countries. These are regions with heavy Scottish influence in their histories. They are also regions which allow politics and religion to link up very often, with Appalachians often voting Republican and much of Antrim voting for the DUP. In contrast however, Scotland itself is one of the most progressive countries in the UK and Europe and has exclusively voted for left wing parties since the foundation of Scotland's Devolved Government.

Why is this?

While I was doing some research, I came across a detail, that as of Emperor Trajan, most Roman Legions were equipped with 55 Chieroballistae, basically to my understanding mini-ballistas that fired very large sized bolts far and fast. Aside from any other siege equipment. That struck me as quite interesting, because that is presumably a lot of firepower, of the kind that (as I understand) most other powers weren't able to field.

Yet, as a casual history buff, I've never come across any battle where the presence of these field/siege weaponry was at all credited with... anything, really. You would think the fact that the Romans could at any point deploy dozens on dozens of siege equipment to dish out murder bolts from afar would have been a more deciding factor in battles than it seems they get credit for.

Are there any examples of battles/conflicts where specifically Roman crewed/siege weapons were of particular note or use? Were they not all that unique? Or is the reason I haven't heard much about them just the usual Roman bravado of "who cares about throwing stuff around, the battle is all about heavy infantry clashing and the will of generals".

Having a bunch of men who know how to fight, probably still armed, possibly less wealthy than when they left, possibly with a big chip on their soldier (like a returning crusader for example), return home all at once to a place that has presumably spent months or years living with out them and possibly been economically ravaged by an enemy force seems like a recipe for trouble. Did pre-modern and early modern states think of this as a problem that had to be prepared for, or was the idea that at least some of your neighbors would turn into bandits after a major war just something people accepted?

Also was there mutual intelligibility with e.g. low Saxon? Did English kings try to conquer continental Germanic land or interact in other ways?

Was it only 300 where it was leonidas and 299 other dudes, or was it 301 including leonidas?

Hey everyone,

Primarily towards WW1 and WW2 but how were soldiers with gout treated?

I suffer from it myself and know how crippling it can be and wondered how the medical side of militaries have treated it. Mainly WW1 and WW2 as above due to at least the British army supplying bully beef in rations.

Were soldiers reassigned, discharged or left to serve in their respective roles?

Cheers

I know the viking presence in North America was very limited and restricted to the more remote regions in the north east but I have also heard that trade did occur between the two peoples. I was wondering if there is any evidence of diseases being transmitted in this exchange either in the European sources or indigenous oral histories ? As a side question, is there any recorded presence of Vikings in indigenous stories from those areas ? I know some oral histories have been found to be surprisingly close to modern narratives on past events, such as the coast Salish stories which match up closely to the crossing of the Bering strait.

It is attributed to have been written by Josephus between 90-120AD.

Yet the oldest manuscripts are like 11-15th century AD.

How can we actually be sure there was no tampering of the text?

Commonly it's used by Christians to cite many things, which is cool and whatnot, but as a skeptic recently I have been wondering that since the oldest manuscript that survived was found in Christian hands (I see this as potential bias), how are we sure they didn't add anything?

Lets say church said Josephus said X, this church statement has manuscript of idk 5th century AD. How can we just say well yeah that's what he wrote? The issue I see is only that verification today can be done with 11-15th century AD manuscripts.

Is there something I am missing or is this skepticism valid?

As a latin, it's something strange when someone says liberal economics and means things that increase the state's rol in economy, here liberal means "libertarian" ( or libertine in the moral/social context), I heard that the change started with FDR who called the new deal liberal, when it wouldn't be considered that way by the people of the time. Is this true? I believe it also can be related with the word free that in spanish can mean "libre"(like in freedom) and "gratis"(something you don't pay), or maybe this linguistic difference came after the word changed?