I've been trying to read up about Sulla and Marius, and it seems fascinating, but I'm having trouble finding Sulla's motives for marching on Rome; was it just a personal hatred of Marius and a thirst for glory and power? But if that was the case, why did he voluntarily lay down his rods of office? Were his motives legitimately for the preservation of the Republic, or is this just falling for his propaganda?

It'd also be great to know about how much the precedent the acquisition of power through force led to men like Caesar attempting similar feats

Thanks

I am a student currently in high school, looking for good suggestions when it comes to reliable books for my extended essay on Hannibal Barca and his military strategies. Task I have chosen is to take a closer look at his strategies and what made them work, and how this made him so successful. In the task, I need to have several good sources of information that I can quote and get information from.

Thanks in advance.

I choose the position of military historian for a high school project. For the essay component I have to answer a two part question:

a) Was Classical Greece glorious, and should we study it? (Justify your answer.) B) And if we do study Greece, what can we as individuals, or as a modern society, learn from it that really matters?

I believe Greece was glorious, and we can learn a lot from studying it. If I had chosen the Philosopher or Math-Science historian this project would be much easier, as we still use many Greece philosophies and mathematical/scientific theories today, but what about the military? What uniquely classical Greek military tactics/strategies/technologies do we use in the modern day?

Note: I was referred to this subreddit via /r/askreddit. I have placed the same question there as well, but it probably fits in better here. Didn't know about this subreddit until a few minutes ago.

It's obviously a well known fact that the Nazi's hated the Jews. They murdered over 6,000,000 Jews, which was only a 'small' part of the total casualties inflicted by the Nazi's. Another 5 to 7 million non-Jews were killed in the concentration camps, and over 20 million were killed outside the camps, on the battlefields, during air raids, etc.

But was the Rotschild family, the most prominent Jewish family in history, sometimes referred to as ''the founders of international banking'', ever targeted by the Nazi's? In Hitler's speeches, he despises 'international jewry' and the 'international banking system which is controlled by the Jews', but I have NEVER read ANYTHING about Rotschild family members being captured during Razzia's, or being murdered by the Nazi's.

And it's not like I don't know anything about World War 2. In fact, I have been interested in WW2 since I was 9 years old, over 11 years now. My username is a reference to a brilliant Russian World War 2 movie.

So far, I believe piety was the sole and principal motivation for the people that went off to for Jerusalem (knights/warrior and the pilgrims that just kind of tagged along) as:

A)Crusade was a voluntary exercise. No domestic ties and allegiances could formally oblige persons to crusade

B) the papal authorization, the penitential quality of the crusade,the prospect of reaching Jerusalem, ect. seems adequate motivation

but for Pope Urban and the Clerics I'm not as sure. What did they hope to personally gain by this expedition, did Urban truly believe this to be God's will?

Any help, including pointing towards any decent sources would be greatly appreciated

(by the way, yes you are helping me with my homework, feel free to tell me off)

I might be totally confused about this, but it seems the Julius Caesar era of Roman culture was extremely different than the Roman Catholic Church era..

Is this the case? It seems that the Romans, after converting to Christianity, behave in a much more "Italian" way (whatever that means).

If this is the case, why is it the case?

I appreciate any help with this. Thanks

Additionally, could anyone go out and chop down some trees and build themselves a house on some unused land?

At the time Berlin fell, the atomic bombs had not yet been dropped, so they wouldn't have been a deterrent.

I've heard that the Germans used only 10% of their forces to fight the Allies. How difficult would it have been for the USSR to fight them, when it no longer had to fight Germany?

So why didn't they do it? Are there any records of deliberations, discussions, or plans made by the Soviet leadership for such a scenario? Why did the refrain from doing it?

I imagine the possible reasons are:

1. They didn't think they have good chances to win, or they thought it would have been too costly.
2. They had no ambition to expand, i.e. they didn't have an expansionist policy, even though Communism is supposed to be spread to the whole of the world.
3. They did it on moral grounds, i.e. betraying your allies, even if they're capitalists, was morally objectionable to them, or they couldn't have justified it in their propaganda.

You famously hear about Russians "Defending the Motherland", and they use it to describe Russia, Ukraind calls it that to and i could imagne the rest of "Slav Countries" calls it that too

But in Scandinavia and Germany its called the Fatherland (Fedreland, Vaterland etc) why is it a divide? is it just by chance that the Russians have the Motherland and Germans the Fatherland? or is it a larger Historic reason?

Did they just shut down and reopen or did they just sell their products to Canada and Europe?

As an undergrad an American history professor told us a story of a pair of sailors that got shipwrecked sometime during the early 1500's somewhere near modern day Alabama or Mississippi. This was before natives in North America were exposed to any European colonization.

The pair aimed to trek east to the Atlantic and hope for a rescue ship. Instead of reaching the sea near northern Florida, they ended up hiking all the way to Nova Scotia. Most likely they were redirected by the Appalachians. It took them many years until they reached the north Atlantic and were finally rescued.

According to my professor, one or both of them sat in some bar in England for the rest of their lives telling and retelling their story, but none of it was every recorded or passed on in detail to posterity. This is tragic because it would have given insight about Native American cultures and tribes before the pressure of European colonization. Historians know we have a skewed view of Native Americans as being violent savages from the viewpoint of European colonists because they experienced Natives reacting to invasions of their land.

I suppose my question is whether or not this story is true (I would hope it is considering I heard it from a pretty well respected Colonial American historian) and if anybody can point me to any sources about it. Has anybody else heard about it? Thanks!

Say you were born in the mid 1940s. What would your life look like? What kind of games would you play, what sort of education would you receive? What were the gender differences? What could you go out and buy for a dollar (this one I'm especially curious about. I've found what a dollar back then would be equivalent to today, but I'm more curious about what you could do with it. Say you went to a corner store, what could you buy for a dollar?). What was dating like?

Pretty much, what was it like growing up and living back then? I am too young to remember/know anything before the age of computers and cell phones, and it seems fascinating but hard to find information on.

I was just wondering what the Victorian period (roughly the second half of the 19th century) was called in places such as America or through Europe and the rest of the continents? Was it Known as the Victorian era at the time?

I've been reading everything I can about this remarkable figure of the early Roman Republic, Publius Valerius Publicola. Most of us know him from the fact that the authors of the Federalist Papers took his name as their pseudonym.

Though almost everything we know about his life is remarkable, of particular interest to me was the fact that he passed a law making it legal for any citizen of Rome to execute any man who dared to make himself a king, even without due process.

I know that our knowledge of early Roman law isn't as comprehensive as it should be (for instance, even the Twelve Tables, which came well after Publius' death, aren't extant). However, do any of you happen to know if that law was still on the books by the time Caesar was assassinated?

Did the assassins murder Caesar under color of law?

It seems as though many gorgeous buildings were demolished in the 1960s, for example Penn Station in NYC. Is this because no one was motivated to restore them? Was there a drastic shift in architectural taste and trends?

Being Peruvian and being told my family has Indigenous ancestry, I have read up on Inca history but I feel that there must be stories and histories that were actually authored by Indigenous people giving me a different perspective and breadth in my hope to try and make some connections on the history that no one in my family can recall sadly.

I've been told that the popular image of ancient fights provided courtesy of Hollywood is not accurate (surprise-surprise!). How exactly did the soldiers carry out the wars; did they engage in one on one combat with axes, swords, lances etc. all through out the war until one side goes down? or is there something that Hollywood excludes altogether?