Just like today, with those who don't actively participate in a religion or question the legitimacy of them.

This is a couple questions. Looking back at history, it's easy to see the malleability of borders. Empires rise and fall. But, throughout history, there have been many long periods where empires remained stationary. By comparison, I feel (and I acknowledge that this is naive) that, for example, France, Spain, UK, Italy, the USA, etc aren't really going to expand or contract any time soon. Influence, perhaps. But the borders are pretty stationary. Let's, for the sake of this question, call this a feeling of "permanence."

(1) Did people in other periods of history have a feeling of permanence? Or, did everyone recognize that there would always be fighting...

(2) Is it possible that the modern, connected, interdependent world (which excludes some big chunks of the world) is now less focused on grabbing land, to the point where wars over territory might be a thing of the past?

(3) Assuming the answer to #2 is "no" - do you think that there is at least a correlation between economic interdependence and modern economic thought and territorial wars?

(4) Will future wars be wars of popular opinion? That is, will future states gain control of new territory through persuasion (and perhaps immigration/demographics), rather than through force?

"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Was there a Michael Jordan, or Babe Ruth that all other gladiators were compared to, like current athletes?

Couldn't you have a government that was both communist and democratic? Why was it that communist states were dictatorships?

More often than not we hear the Greek Pantheon referred to as Zeus, Athena, Hephaestus, and Ares by their Greek names instead of Jupiter, Minerva, Vulcan and Mars. Asides from Hercules it usually stays pretty Greek but at this point we really just seem to use their Greek names+Hercules and nobody really seems to notice.

1. How were the locations of trench battles determined?
2. Were trenches created in preparation for the combat, or as a result of it?
3. What kinds of weapons did the average, say, British soldier carry with him during a trench battle?

I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast. In Death throes of the Republic he mentions that Lucius Cornelius Sulla mocked the youth of Marius the younger, having been presented with his severed head, by saying "First you learn to pull an ore, then you may take the helm".

I really liked this and decided to do a google search of that phrase, but I found no hits. It's not on the internet. So I'm wondering, Who recorded it? is this accurate?

I understand that the introduction of the machine gun and aerial bombing called for a dramatic change to curve the losses, but what were the steps taken in transition?

In what cultures is this true as well? My hypothesis is that historically the men go into battle and need to keep it short to stay out of their eyes and so other soldiers don't grab it. The women are allowed to grow it out because it doesn't become such a nuisance in home life, but then again that's just my theory. I have noticed that many cultures have similar gender preference for short and long hair.

I'm looking through old powerpoint slides from a WWII class I took last semester and I'm curious because I am now taking a course on Italy.

Italy and Germany successfully invaded Greece in 1941, the Italians occupied much of Greece even though they played a small role compared to the Germans in the invasion.

In my notes I have "In Sept. 1943, Italy surrendered. The Germans did not want the arms and ammunition on Cephalonia to fall into the hands of the Greek resistance. The Italians refused to turn over the arms and ammunition and began fighting the Germans. The Germans prevailed and killed about 6,000 of 9,000 Italian prisoners."

How did the Greeks resurge after they were destroyed in 1941 during the invasion, and why did the Italians make a deal with the Allies if they had already acquired Greece?

Thank you

Hey guys, I was reading Mark Kurlansky's Salt earlier today, and he briefly goes into the topic of the Polos' journeys into China, and mentions that, while Marco Polo (at least, in the version of his journeys that was known) talked about several things unique to China at the time (such as salt cakes being used as money), he neglected to mention things like the Great Wall, foot-binding or the printing press, thus making parts of his story likely to be made up (at least in 1300s genoese opinion).

What exactly is the current consensus on that subject? Is there any particular work that goes in depth into that area that I don't need to be an expert in the subject to read?

I read the rules and my question might be to general, if it is sorry, but here goes.

The ubiquity of weapons in history give the impression that people were subjected to violence quite a bit, is that so?

To be more specific about time and place focus on early modern Europe. I was looking at a book that had some great pictures of a rapier and dagger and it got me thinking. How common was the need of such a tool? Are they really for show? Did people really try stab each other to with these things on a regular basis? If so how frequently? These weapons were well made and therefore expensive. Does that mean only rich people participated? Were poor people better at conflict resolution or did they have equivalent weapons that didn't make it into collections?

I know about aerial bombardment but as far as I know, there were no significant attempt to ground invasion during the war.

My understanding is that Latin was spoken widely in Britain at least until the Roman army evacuated in 410. How is it then that prior to 1066, aka old English Beowulf times, all Latin influence seems to have disappeared from the language?

edit: typo

I got blasted on an online course on the greatest leaders in history. This is what I said about Alexander the Great. Can anyone tell me why I am "ignorant idiot",etc: "The problem was that he was content; that is, content with his own logic, never considering the possibility that he could be wrong. Because of this "contentedness", he was motivated by nothing, meaning he would do things that would potentially harm himself and his people even though he would really have nothing significant to gain, but much to lose. It is obvious that he suffered from "Hollywood Syndrome", the sickness that makes a person unsatisfied with his own life, even though everything in that person's life is great. He might qualify as one of the most "content" people in history. "

Many forts seem to have been designed with various star-shaped designs throughout history. What was the advantage of this and why was it so prevalent?

I'm writing a story on bootlegging, mainly for myself, in the late 1920's during prohibition. I can't really find what kind of cars were used, or the most sought after types. Can you help a menial writer out? Thanks!

Hello everyone, I'm a student of North Carolina State University (if you don't believe me, some of my posts in sports threads will hopefully verify this). I'm taking a graduate course in Russian History, revolving around women's rights in the Soviet Union, specifically dealing with the Zhenotdel (a branch in the Soviet Union serving women's rights). Carol Eubanks Hayden wrote a dissertation entitled "Feminism and Bolshevism: The Zhenotdel and the Politics of Women's Emancipation in Russia, 1917-1930". I've spent two days trying to find this resource, but unfortunately even Google Scholar has let me down. I cannot find anywhere to buy it or even view it besides a small preview from Google Scholar. If any of you could help me in some way, such as point out an online resource where I could buy this transcript or pointing out maybe some online library where I missed seeing it, or even finding a PDF, I would be immensely grateful. So far, universities in California, especially UC Berkeley, are the only places with access to it. Thank you all so much for your help.

TL;DR: I need help finding the source mentioned above. Plz halp.

Anything including daily life of denizens and the ruling class, government structure, military strategy, foreign policy, and economics interest me. I am looking for some good sources preferably print.