If I asked african people of different ethnic groups about the white men that lived in a far away land, what would they tell me?

Africa is a huge continent full of different people, but I'm not particularly interested in one specific group so everything is welcome.

Tactics as in actual battlefield fighting.

Documentaries which show reenactments tend to show the Romans as highly disciplined when fighting. Reenactments of Medieval battles are shown as being brawls.

How did tactics evolve between the 2 periods? In what ways was it similar? In what ways was it different? Was there a regression in anyway?

I read the rules and saw that homework questions were allowed as long as the OP would basically "admit" it was a homework question so here you go.

Currently in AP US History, and I have to construct a continuum of 10 major events each for 5 domestic topics. This topic has been giving me the most trouble. Individual rights versus majority rule. Other than the passing of the Bill of Rights with the First Amendment I can't really think of any. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

On a personal level I mean

Herodotus 3.80-3.83, a well reasoned argument in favor of popular rule is made. it is followed by a condemnation of popular rule in favor of monarchy. The language of both of these arguments is the same as made by Hobbes, Locke, Payne and the Jefferson/Hamilton. I was a US history major, a high school teacher, and a reasonably bright person and I NEVER heard that the roots of Democracy can be found being discussed 2500 years ago. What did I miss, who has made these connections that I should be reading?

Out of all possible conflicts, this one's unpopularity doesn't make as much sense to me. No one in the Arab world at this point (1991) liked Saddam Hussein. Not only that, Iraq invaded Kuwait! One would think that if any time were a just time to intervene in a conflict so as to uphold 2(4) of the UN Charter, this would be it. I completely understand the whole perception of western meddling in M.E. sovereignty, and how this historically fits into that narrative, but any other details would be great.

Ninja edit: Obviously correct me if i'm wrong about any of the above.

I was recently watching a movie set in ancient China when I though oh yeah, this is set in ancient china, all the women really would have been horribly crippled and not really able to walk around 'cause they'd all have had their feet bound and got kinda depressed because

a) foot binding was horrible and

b) that meant that basically every movie set in that time period I had watched was not historically accurate in a big way.

I guess my question more broadly is, was foot binding a common enough practice that movies set in ancient China are not historically accurate unless basically all the upper class women have bound feet? I guess it depends pretty heavily on the time period, as from what I understand the popularity of foot binding shifted over time and wasn't a thing that has been practiced in China since the beginnings of the culture, but was invented rather more recently.

Fake edit: I did a bit of research and it looks like the movie I watched (painted skin) was set in the Qin dynasty which was before the advent of foot-binding around the Song dynasty. so I guess that movie is accurate, but for movies set after the Song dynasty, would it be historically accurate if foot-binding was not portrayed as ubiquitous amongst the upper classes?

I hope I'm not breaking any rules here as I don't really have a particular question to ask. Rather, I've been studying the rhetoric of the First World War and, between everything from nationalist propaganda and photos of cheering crowds sending soldiers off to the war, the general idea I have of WWI seems to be one of unanimous support.

I would like to do some research into the rhetoric of anti-war groups before and during WWI, with the intention of writing a paper on the subject. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some resources to read into. I have a pretty wide scope for this project and all suggestions are welcome, including academic essays, literature and poetry, music, personal accounts and whatever else might help me get a sense of how and why people opposed the war.

I've read the novel Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo, which is poignantly anti-war, and concerns itself with WWI (however it was written in 1938, and so has a retrospective anti-war message regarding WWI). I've also been reading The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell, which covers individual accounts of British soldiers during the war.

Thanks in advance.

I have read that Czechoslovokia had prepared formidable fortifications along the German border, something like a southeastern Maginot line. How strong were their defenses when the Germans were threatening war? What was their planned strategy in case of a German invasion?

Also: What did finland do during WWII?

Where I live in the Midwestern United States, leavened bread appears to enjoy far more popularity than unleavened bread types. This and other experiences/observations have created in me the impression that this is also the case in if not the entire world, then certainly large swathes of it.
It would also seem that leavened bread comes with disadvantages compared to unleavened. In particular it seems less efficient from the standpoints of making (extra steps), and both transporting/eating (larger volume per calorie). Thus the question. Thanks for any light you can shine on this small mystery.

Yeah, it's a weird question, but let me explain:

I was studying about the tyranny of Peisistratos in ancient Athens and it's relations with the cult of Dionysus when I suddenly read a text about his "unnatural relations with his wife", according to Herodotus (Histories, I, LXI).

Since, according to Herodotus, the alcmeonidae were cursed, Peisistratos didn't want to have kids with his wife, having only "unnatural relations" with his wife, which I conclude to be anal sex.

This got me curious. Besides Herodotus, what are the other ancient texts that cite anal sex?

I read that Bhaskaracharya, an Indian mathematician, developed theories of gravity and calculus in the 12th century. I am curious why he is unknown in the West, and what impact his discoveries had. Specifically, how accurate were his theories? And second, even if there were inaccuracies, what was his legacy in the mathematical and scientific communities? Newton was seen as important not just because of his work, but because he triggered a "scientific revolution" that paved the way for greater gains in knowledge by scholars who came after him. Was there such a revolution following Bhaskaracharya as well?

Apologies if this is outside the scope of appropriate questions for this subreddit. I know it's not a "what happened / didn't happen" type question.

I'm considering further education in this field and would love some insight as to the current state of the field, who the current thought leaders are, or where to go to find out. Thanks!