Never in one war movie, museum, history book, TV show or textbook have I seen a picture of a fuel tanker from this era. I've never heard it discussed either. How was fuel transported to the front lines, especially in the cases of mechanized divisions like Patton's or Rommel's?

Yes second amendment but why do they feel they need that right?

When a written language has no resemblance to English, such as Arabic or Chinese, what are the rules for writing words in English and who made them? Chinese history is peppered with words like Xin and Qing that have odd spellings. Then there's people like Empress Xiaozhuangwen. I mean couldn't there have been a better way to spell that? What's going on here?

I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit, but I've recently heard that homosexuality was another form of being a eunuch long ago, citing things such as verses of Jesus referring to some eunuchs as being born eunuchs in 19:12. It's a stretch, so I figured I might want to ask it to see if it's true.

I was under the impression that they had military garrisons, merchants, and maybe even British royalty there. But i've always wondered how long it took to transfer complete control and how long it took to transport British holdings (ships, people, goods)?

Edit: title shouldn't say Bangladesh wasn't in existence yet

I've been looking into it and there seems to be little on the topic. If someone could at least give me some sources because I find this very interesting and would love to know more. Thanks.

Typically if you were to ask a modern day soldier in the United States what unit they were from they might tell you they are 10th Mountain, 3rd ID or 101st. How would a Roman soldier during the imperial period respond if asked the same question?

I think the title says it well enough. I know the Italian revolt failed because France helped the Pope, but what about all the others?

I am taking a history course focusing on American history and was to curious as to why Native tribes did not side with the African slaves to abolish slavery. Both had a common interest, blacks were being enslaved and Natives were having their land taken from them. From my understanding, Natives weren't enslaved and had the means to go to wsr if needed.

History is a per subject of mine and historical fiction is probably my favorite genre, particularly if the author has done some serious research that shows in their writing. While it probably isn't healthy to depend on fiction for your history, a well written book can go a long way in creating interest and possibly educating you.

Do you guys have any favorite historical fiction books? Perhaps something related to your field of interest?

To the mods: I'm not quite sure if this is an acceptable question. If it isn't please let me know and I'll remove it

What were they expecting when they got on boats and went towards unexplored waters? Did they expect to live? Was their some sort of religious imperative that compelled people in those early island nations to leave at some point in their lives? Would there have been regular boats of later settlers after the first group?

Livy, writing about the founding of Rome over 500 years after it happened, Plutarch writing Lives of people long dead, Herodotus writing about long ago migrations or events...

What kind of evidence (now probably lost) would these historians have had access to? Were there histories of these events that later historians based their work off of? What were these like? Are these reliable? And how much of their evidence is simply oral tradition?

I recently had a conversation with a friend who was making what seemed like spurious claims about the Japanese during WWII. He seemed so certain that he was right that I brought it here. He claimed the following: The US navy was smaller than the Japanese navy and therefore the US was under threat of siege and thus the dropping of the atomic bombs was justified. He even went so far as to suggest that the Japanese would have taken over significant parts of the world (including the US) and held onto them for a long time. He induced the idea that we perhaps would have been conversing in Japanese had events panned out differently. I strongly disagreed. I tend to disagree with any argument that tends towards justifying the atomic bomb, so I want to know if any of this true or not.

I'm afraid I may be looking at this out of context and I don't want to suppose that at this time during WWII the US navy was anywhere near the level of what it is today being the world's largest military superpower (ever). I do know that the US military was mainly built up in the years after the war and going into the Cold War. To compare more recent events that I'm more familiar with - I obviously don't buy the justification of the war in Iraq on the basis that we were being threatened. But could it have been that the US was significantly threatened at that time in WWII?

I suppose my question is this: Was it possible for Japan to invade the US in the later stages of WWII and/or was it even in their interest to do so? The purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to weaken the US navy IIRC and certainly not about seizing territory. That brings me to believe that Japan had no interest in attacking US territory. I am, however, conflicted then with the dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I have heard others argue that this was to defend the US rather than to deter and cripple the Japanese politically and economically (which is what I believe).

As far as I understand it, throughout most of the medieval period, Christians believed that it was sinful to lend money and charge interest, at least to other Christians. Obviously, this is not longer the case, and I have never met a Christian that feels this way. So what happened, and when did it happen?

I've read about ancient armies using wicker armor. Would this have been enough to stop a weapon made from bronze or iron? Would it protect from piercing or only glancing blows? Thanks for any responses!

I have seen a number of biographies, most of which have mixed reviews. What i am looking for is one accessible to a non-historian reader ( but a reader with some background knowledge in the area).

Thanks much.

Why did Paris and London develop an economic and political hegemony over the rest of France/UK whereas Berlin never grew to that size or significance?

Did Zoroastrianism, or the various monotheistic sun god religions like those favored by Akhenaten and Elagabalus influence Christianity?