If I recall correctly, Military service in Ancient Rome was mandatory until the Age of Augustus, whom after winning the Civil War decided to regulate the number of legions (there were around 60 after his victory at Actium). He introduced the concept of a professional army with legionaries serving for 16+ years. In 9 AD, after the battle of Teutoburg there was a wave of panic in the Empire, legions lost and fear of barbarians invading Gaul, and there were similar other situations of in the Empire's history. So basically the 28-32 legions (depending on the periods) were not able to cover all of the borders.

My question is the following: Why didn't the Emperors re-introduce some sort of a military service (I am talking about a short one--> 4 years for example), and use those forces as defensive corps? In this way, the legions could assist any area without fearing to leave a gap behind them, or even go on the offensive and conquer.

Thank you!

I've been watching a lot or ancient style shows/movies such as Vikings. In the large scale battles i found it very difficult to keep track of who was on what side as they were all wearing similar styled armour. Any historians on here care to shed some light on this matter?

I don't know if there's an actual answer to this question, but how did we make the transition from using flint and stone tools, to retrieving ore from the ground, to refining that ore into a metal, to then forging that metal into something useful?

I'm sure that there's a natural evolution to these processes, but I've never heard anyone discuss it.

I'm not sure if this question is right here, but I'm looking for some books in that area - maybe there is even fiction with footnotes? I'm looking for books that explain and educate on the historical situation not books that are set there for purely atmospheric considerations.
If I'm mistaken by posting such a question here please don't ban me. I enjoy this subreddit too much.

I mean like if I write a dairy about what is happening to me and in the world + my opinion and write it all down. How important is it for historians? How important are diaries of the commen man to historians today?

I've heard French people referred to as Franks in the context of Middle Ages, and it's not hard to see how 'frank' would become 'france' and thus 'french', but how did they go from being called the Gallic people in the Roman period to being Franks?

I've always been extremely interested in anarchist philosophies and ideas, and that interest has led me to read a lot about the 1936 Spanish Revolution. The one problem I have is that most of what I read seems to be very biased towards the anarchists. I wish I could believe that everything was as "perfect" as some of the stuff I've read seems to say but I am too skeptical of it. So what was life really like for the common people during the Spanish Revolution?

I was talking to my history teacher and we were thinking about what could have happened if the Nazi's had 15, 10, even 5 more years to work. That's what prompted me to ask.

Realistic - Plans that were in motion when they were stopped or actual things that could have happened

Fantasy - The propaganda and thousand year reich sort of stuff

I recently finished listening to this, and greatly enjoyed it but was wondering if any historians studying Byzantine history had issues regarding its accuracy? In particular, the final episode regarding the fall of Constantinople - it makes for an incredible tale, but I always feel rather leary of historical stories which fit a distinct narrative so well. I haven't read much about this apart from the podcast so I'd like to know how it is received by other historians.

Greeting mighty Redditors!!

In the late 1980's and early 1990's Eastern Europe underwent a popular transition away from a communist economy and/or totalitarian state. While this movement was largely non-violent and socially popular how did the true-believing communists and socialists, party members, and others adjust with emerging capitalism? I know that some saw the way the wind was blowing and several simply retired but not everyone was fortunate enough to retire comfortably.

If anyone can shed any information it would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I have to write a speech on the Cuban missile crisis from the communist perspective, but I can't seem to find any decent sources which specifically cover the communist mentality.

I'm reading On Killing, and if anybody has a link to a complete analysis of it I'd be very grateful. I'm having a bit of trouble with many of Grossman's historical claims, but one of them that struck me were his figures about unfired and multiply loaded rifles att Gettysburg.

He cites the fact that 90% of found rifles were found loaded and immediately draws the conclusion that this must be that this must be because their bearers were unwilling to fire. Additionally many of these were double and triple loaded, which he concludes must mean that their bearers were unwilling to pull the trigger even while performing the rest of the firing drill.

I have a few problems with his reasoning:

• He also states that most casualties were due to artillery, which rather suggests that many of the fallen simply were killed before having a chance to fire their weapons.

• I can see quite a few more likely alternative reasons for multiply loaded weapons. Missing to place the percussion cap, or perhaps using faulty caps, would in all likelihood have the same effect, as would a panicked soldier trying to keep pace with his peers (not having loaded in time to fire, then trying to keep in step by starting to set the next load on top of the first).

This also raises a couple of questions:

• Grossman also claims at multiple points that soldiers avoid killing by firing above their enemies' heads, why would this not come into effect at Gettysburg and instead manifest itself in unfired rifles?

• Of the rifles found, he doesn't state how many were found from each side and where? Most of the casualties at Gettysburg were caused at Picket's Charge during the Confederate advance. Why would it seem out of place that nearly all of the Confederate casualties never had a chance to fire?

• What was the state of training of the respective sides, and of infantry of the era. They could certainly march and drill, but is there anything to suggest that double and triple loaded rifles weren't a product of anything other than an inability to operate under stress?

I feel like we should consider the Second Sino-Japanese War as the beginning because it was on such a large scale. I could be talking out of my ass, but I wish to hear it from you guys.

Having read some survey-level histories of the region in this period, I'm at a loss: On one hand, Magyar raiding parties are described as far-reaching and immensely successful on the battlefield, penetrating as far as northern Iberia and southern Italy. On the other, there are no mentions of attempts by the Magyars to occupy territory outside of the Carpathian Basin; I also don't have any idea as to what affect these campaigns had on the demographics, economics, or politics of raided regions, particularly those such as central Germany that were passed through frequently.

Basically, I'd like to better understand how these campaigns were provisioned and directed, what their typical targets were, what they devastated, and what they left untouched. What were their immediate and long-term consequences? How was it that they did not result in permanent conquests while still managing to be so long-range and widespread? Do I have a mistaken idea as to their actual scale?