I watched BBC's Rome's Lost Empire and they spent a significant amount of time discussing Portus and its place in Roman history. Researching a little further, it looks like Portus was a supplement or expansion to the port of Ostia, which was not discussed in the BBC documentary at all.

• What kind of strategic advantage did Portus give the Romans, and how did their construction of the port reflect that?
• How did it's significance compare to Alexandria or Carthage?
• What are archaeological efforts at the site like now? What are some of the major insights that can be gleaned from future digs?

I know this is a bit broad, but reading a couple historical narratives regarding the 16th to 18th centuries, and there's casual mentions of rockets (16th century) and howitzers (18th century). How did these differ from the 'cannon' as I would conventionally imagine it, and what was the reason for their use?

Why would an attacking army, for example, used a rocket over a cannonball?

What other artillery pieces were used that I might not know about, and how did they develop?

If, for example, the Ottomons were tunneling for a siege, what sort of explosives would they use?

(By the way, META: I'd just like to say to you all - this subreddit is absolutely amazing in terms of quality of content. I read askhistorians almost every day before work... everything an intelligent layman could ever ask for. Great job, you guys are phenomenal - mods, contributors, everyone.)

I was taught in School History that most peasants never strayed more than a mile from their village, if so how did peasants avoid the problem of inbreeding over time that the Hapsburgs had?

It seems like every country/region in the world over the past 230 years has experienced a starvation event where more than 10,000 have died at a time, but not the USA. Why not? Or have we and I never heard about it? Are there regions that also haven't experienced one?

I read the play for a history class last semester and was reading another post related to Ancient Greece and women and I started thinking about Lysistrata again.

It focuses on women very heavily and it portrays them in an empowering sort of way. I could be interpreting the play wrong but that's what I got from it. And please let me know if I'm wrong or misunderstand anything.

1. Was there any controversy in regards to showing women having power over men? This could be because of the sex or

2. I understand the play was a comedy so is it possible that the women controlling the men (and the men being so desperate for sex) was a sort of "when pigs fly" kind of idea?

3. Would men have played the female characters? If so, would that have added to the comedy?

4. In the play, couldn't the men have had sex with other men? I'm not sure how widespread homosexual activity was in Ancient Greece or how casual it was or could be.

I might come up with some other questions later. Thanks!

Just like there is a very early atomic theory and theories of the infinite developed in Ancient Greece, is there any form of observable/measurable prelude or predecessor to Dualism in our current modern-day understanding possibly found in Greek Philosophy/Philosophical writing?
I thought about the Aristotelian "Healthy Mind in a healthy Body", but I lack any knowledge of sources to state that with any accuracy. In any case, there is my question.

basically, how common would it have been for a man to hit his wife? Would it have been socially acceptable or was it shunned?

We're talking about the American Colonies and someone suggested that the revolutionary war was completely removed from religious idealism. Did the revolutionary war have anything to do with religious beliefs? For some reason I thought most things in the early Americas had to do with the religions of the people! she'd any light on this?

The Germans were into the Nazi line of thoughts for a long time, there must have been people who believed that it was still the best way and tried to do something about it.

I know that translating books like the bible from Latin or whichever language its widely accepted form was written, was a big source of theological debate. But once books like the bible did get translated into local languages were there any sources of strife between for example Italian Catholics and french catholics over translated passages? Or did perhaps German Protestants take umbrage with the King James bible? What about other religion's holy books?

What do we know about the lives of average people, how they lived what they did?

are there any major records of the time period and if so how accurate are they considered to be. Or are the records of mostly fallacy, and rumors started by locals wanting to make them selves/their country/ or peoples look better?

I remember a teacher mentioning to me in high school that Karl Marx did some things that were very important in changing the way the study history. That's all I can actually remember...

I'm very interested in the history of the bible and ancient Israel (although I am not religious myself). So far my reading has only really been around the earlier (Old Testament) period.

I wondered if anyone could recommend any reading (or other sources) regarding the emergence of the Christian church, as well as the period in general.

Thanks in advance

Why was there so much outrage because of it? Surely the French knew why the Royal navy was forced to stop these ships from joining the Kriegsmarine?

The story goes that they started building from two ends and when they met in the middle they found out the sizes didn't match, and that's why the had (have?) to load cargo between trains.

I've been using this factoid for a really long time, but i can't find any evidence for it. Wikipedia doesn't mention it and i didn't have any luck on Snopes. Am I thinking of the wrong railway or isn't there any truth in it at all?

I've got general Euro History post-WWII down, but I'd like a deep analysis of the European Unification project, balancing both the legal/economic/political history (treaties, conferences, major players, etc.) and also (ideally) the political philosophy as it evolved post-WWII, and also any precedence in European intellectual thought (e.g., Goethe talked about European integration, no?).

I've googled around but, as one might expect, it's clear that many such books have a clear political angle and bias. Any recent, exemplary scholarship would be much appreciated.

There are a lot of interesting posts posted in this subreddit, but a lot of people here(including me) don't even have time to seriously read them all. With more subscribers, they are going to be even more post and more to read, which isn't bad- we got more info. Should we somehow organize this subreddit, so you could read posts you don't have time to read during the week?