Sometimes I have dreams in which I am a travelling dude who simply goes from city to city talking to Romans or crossing the Alps and going into Gauls/Franks territories and chatting with them. I really love those dreams. I wish could have a time-travel machine and do just that.

Just checked the FAQ and I didn't see a question like this.

Was just reading up on the Second Punic War and it was mentioned that the Romans had a superior approach to sieges then the carthaginians.

Just wanted to know, how would a roman army during the second punic war handle a siege (use any examples large or small), and how would the Carthaginians handle the same scenario (if we know their tactics well enough)

And if you have lots of time/interest how would post-marian reformed legions differ in tactics to pre-marian?

Was the music of Mozart, et al typically known by (or even relevant to) the average person of the 18th century? Would someone living in Europe but far from Vienna have known about Mozart and/or heard his music during his lifetime, or was it primarily a sort of luxury item for the upper classes?

Obliquely related, were there regionally famous musicians that were considered red-hot in their day (a hypothetical Elvis of Glasgow, let's say), but which have now been forgotten except to historians?

As in the title, this is mostly a curiosity question but also for vehicle team names in a game I'm thinking of working on, as I know Supermarine and Hawker, Ford, Krupp, but it's been surprisingly hard to find a list of the other companies that helped in the war effort (or I've missed a link to them somewhere), for Britain and if possible for the other major nations in the war.

And as a side-question - how did production lines develop during the war? I've heard about the lines that the Russian's had tanks barely painted driving towards the front/nearest train right off the line, and that the US was producing 10s of vehicles a day, so I was wondering how they managed to refine the engineering to that degree.

I am mainly interested in the Roman army or the Greek city-states, but this question applies to any region or time. Did they do limbering-up exercises before? I was just thinking of how much that would affect the mobility of the army.

Thanks!

In Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300, Ian Heath describes peasant troops as very low quality and 'cavalry fodder.'

Why would peasants be called to arms if they were that lame? What roles were peasants assigned on the battlefield? How much training did they have? How was their performance compared to militia infantry?

I've always been interested in Military history and the speed in which Ghost Division moved across France.

Hey Guys, I have been given an essay to write on this question and I was wondering what you more qualified peoples of the internet know? Any info or links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I don't know if /r/AskHistorians or /r/AskReligion would have been better but I feel that this sub would give a more balanced answer.

I was reading Carlo Ginzburg's book The Cheese and the Worms about a 16th century miller named Menocchio who is on trial for heresy in Italy. During his interrogation it comes out that he read several books that negated or challenged the Catholic Church's teachings on religion.

There was a paragraph or two when describing the Virgin Mary that stuck out to me and I wanted to see if this theory had any basis in historical fact or was just a theory that sprang from the book Menocchio had read.

"An he explained that Mary 'was called a Virgin, having been in the temple of virgins, because there was a temple where twelve virgins were kept, and as they grew up they were married off, and I read this in a book caled Lucidaria della Madonna.' This book, which he called the Rosario elsewhere, was probably the Rosario della gloriosa Vergine Maria by the Dominian Alberta da Castello. Menocchio would been able to read in it: "Contemplate here zealous soul, how after making an offering to God and to the priest St. Jaochim and St. Anne left their most precious daughter in the temple of God, where she was to be cared for with the other virgins who had been dedicated to God. In that place she dwelt in sublime devotion contemplating diving things, and she was visited by the Holy Angels, as though she were their queen and empress, and she was always engaged in prayer.'"

What I got from this is that "Virgin Mary" was a title that Mary was given or associated with due to her being raised in the Temple of Virgins. In Ginzburg's book he also discusses Menocchio's beliefs that Mary could not have bore a child and remained a virgin and that Jesus was a man like anyone else.

I'm interested in naval warfare in the early and high middle ages, particularly on the Atlantic. Looking on wikipedia and other places it seems like Mediterranean navies continued to use galleys and tactics similar to those of Antiquity, with certain developments. But what about North and West Europe? What kind of ships did they use and how did they use them in battle? Also wikipedia mentions that cogs were able to defeat Scandinavian longships and that this signaled the type of ship to be used from then on. What allowed the cogs to defeat the longships, and why was this so important?

In other words, how far back does the current monarchy go back in terms of heredity?

I am not referring to American plantation slaves or anything post enlightenment. I am wondering just how bad a slave's lot in the Roman or Grecian empires was, or any old world states famous for their slaves.

On a side note, it seems to me freeing a lifelong slave would be doing them a unkindness, suddenly they have to make their own way with no resources, a slave always had food to eat, a freed lsave would be little more than a beggar.

Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the web and one of the most frequently cited websites on Reddit. For better or for worse, millions of people use Wikipedia as their primary source of information. Do you edit Wikipedia? Have you written a Wikipedia article? How are the quality of articles on Wikipedia for your field of history?

The fall of democracy in europe seemed to be an important factor between the first world war and the second in many different european states, was this just a few isolated incidents or part of a bigger trend? What prompted these states to try and rid themselves of democracy? why is it that whilst many countries became totalitarian that some kept their democracy? Was there something these countries had or lacked in order to sway them towards dictatorships or the continuation of democracy?

How can I trust history after so big modification?

It has always seemed strange to me. They aren't near each other, and they don't have a common culture/language/history.

I was listening to one of Dan Carlin's podcasts about the Anabaptists in Munster and this struck me. Was there less corruption in the Eastern Church? Stronger central government would preclude some of the problems but the Russians, etc at that time were plenty fragmented, right? Just curious.

Charles II didn't speak until he was four, and didn't walk until he was eight. His tongue was so large that he drooled frequently, and he was unable to chew due to the "Hapsburg jaw." The physician who performed his autopsy wrote that he "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."

Nonetheless, he married multiple times in a futile effort to produce an heir. I know that marriages at the time were almost entirely political, but I still wonder what the women in question often thought of their situation. Is there any record of any of Charles' wives being dissatisfied or repulsed with their lot in life? What about other women forced to marry and attempt to procreate with kings who were quite clearly mentally or physically incapacitated? Were they brought up to see it simply as their duty?

I feel like this should go here since it's a question that is directed towards historians and history fans alike about the study of history. After listening to Dan Carlin's podcasts and getting all sorts of new ideas in my head, I've begun to wonder how to be become the best observer of history that I can be. As a history fan, I have begun wondering, how do the rest of you do it? What's your most effective method of analyzing history professionally or as a hobby? Do you need to remain emotionally detached from a subject (like I've started to get) in order to understand everything and not get caught up in the we consider stupidity of previous centuries? What are other ways in which you analyze history to get the best and most informative view as possible? Should you forget about political and religious affiliations while reading history books or viewing documentaries?