Thought occured to me.

I'm trying to reconcile my grandfather's journal within the context of the war and I'm having a hard time figuring out where he was. Thank you for you help.

I'm referring mostly to Greco-Roman slavery here, but if people want to chime in about other slavery, such as Ottoman or Europeon/American slavery go ahead. So in another thread someone mentioned slaves would kill their children so that their children weren't born into slavery. This sounds unlikely to me, because other than killing children, it seems to me that the masters would be unhappy with people born into slavery not being their slaves.

What I'm referring to is the era when the citizens of these new Kingdoms stop differentiating themselves ethnically along the lines of either "Roman" or [Insert name of Germanic tribe].

We know that when the "Barbarian" invaders settled on what were previously Roman provinces, they didn't immediately intermingle with the local Romans. If I recall correctly, the Visigothic and the Frankish Kingdoms had different laws and punishments for people depending on their ethnicity based on either Roman Law or Germanic Customs.

So when did the citizens of these Kingdoms start to integrate into a society where the line between "Barbarian" and "Roman" blur, and eventually cease to exist altogether?

In the beginning of the movie Gladiator, the Roman armies catapult some sort of burning cannonballs or other objects toward the Germanic armies in the forest. They hit the ground or trees and explode in a flash of fire, setting the tree or forest floor ablaze. What were these? Was that historically accurate? What were some of the other awesome weapons available to the Romans?

I'm a Norwegian and I'm curious to know more about the strategic ideas the Germans had in taking Norway and in particular the north of Norway. Where they interested in the fishing? How did the occupation impact the fishermen?

I'm curious as to the general philosophy behind teaching intro classes. Are 'themes' and general ideas and threads throughout history more important, or are specifics (dates, names, battles, etc.) more important?

Obviously both are extremely important to understanding history, but for a one semester class that contains a significant population of students that will never take another history course, what do you think that it is crucial to focus on? What do you do with such a limited time-frame to help students have a fuller understanding of history?

Expansion of communism was in the favor of the USSR, why didn't they help the North Vietnamese in the same way the US helped the South Vietnamese?

I know they sent a lot of aid and military equipment, but they didn't use their own army.

I've heard about this unique cultural aspect of the Manchus' child-rearing practices. Is this rooted in fact? Was this practice widespread? Or was this a slanderous myth?

If so, are we able to play any music from this period?

To what extent did they participate vs the SS? Did they really never notice or did they turn a blind eye? Are there records/accounts of both sides varying form man to man?

I was just curious on their roles in battle containing hundreds of thousands of men. I know they were used as skirmishers, but what does that entail?

To clarify a little - I've been looking at the history of US Presidents and British Prime Ministers. What strikes me is the amount of times an assassination has been attempted (and succeeded) against the US President when compared to the Prime Minister. I'm interested what the historical reasoning for this is. The title sounds like I'm asking what the assassins motive was, this is not the case. I'm more interested in why assassination even becomes an option.

Hi I'm a student and was told to research Operation Barbarossa for my WWII class and reasons that it failed. For the most part, I found out what i wanted to know, but in most every source that i have looked at says that the Nazis were unprepared for the Russian winter, and no other real concrete reasons other than that reason. Also i would like to know more about the other plans that preceded Operation Barbarossa. Thanks in advance.

I'm aware we've always been mostly capitalist and that capitalism is incredibly old, however when did America's free market really become entwined with 'American Values.' Particularly how did we link religion, morality, our founding myths, and the American dream with Free Market Capitalism?

Note that this isn't a question of if this is right or wrong, but rather how the modern American 'patriot' came to be.

Forgive me if this is too modern, but I have a strong suspicion it took place longer than twenty years ago.