I know it hasn't been so forever, and that is probably somewhat exclusive to modern Western societies. But even in those, how did that happen? When did pro athletes and singers become so wealthy? I know too that capitalism is the obvious answer but it was not so immediate. Definitely within the last century or two...right?

I remember reading an interview with a Russian general some years ago. He basically claimed that it was an open secret that both the UdSSR and the US would have plastered central Germany (i.e. specifically the Fulda Gap) with (tactical) nukes from day one of a conflict.

Sadly I cannot find the interview anymore.

As macabre as it is, warfare is probably one aspect of history that interests me the most. Be it WWII, knights in armor beating on each other, Hannibal's elephants, whatever.

So, looking as far back as we can, what is the most ancient battle we know of. How do we know of it? Do we know who fought it and why?

As a side question, what is the most ancient human on human violence that we know happened?

A friend of mine once said that the bloodbath of the spanish inquisition is a popular myth, and that conviction rates for those who got in trouble were under 5%.

Surprisingly I had a hard time searching for hard numbers, so I come here looking for answers.

What were the real conviction and death rates like during the inquisition, and if she is right, how and why did the inquisition get such a nasty reputation?

I have check to see if there have been any similar post, or even any noticeable articles from a google search, but couldn't really find anything. I know that at the time the U.S. was in the middle of Reconstruction in the south, and that Brazil, while a large land holder, didn't really have as large of a population. My question is what would have been there thoughts on another huge European power, considering the implications of the reach its neighbors had at the time.

Asking for it back just seems like it would have been an... awkward request to make given the circumstances.

My understanding from Philip Freeman's Alexander the Great biography is that coming into this battle Darius had significant numerical superiority particularly in cavalry yet Alexander's decisive tactic was to draw the Persian horse and cause them to stretch their lines until an opening appeared. As events played out the Macedonian companion cavalry successfully drew the Persians to spread their left flank, wheeled and charged the opening forcing Darius to flee. What I dont understand is how a larger force would be unable to stretch their lines more effectively than a smaller opponent, or how the persuing Persians were unable to keep up with the wheeling and charging maneuvers executed by the Macedonian forces. Since both sides were utilizing similar combined forces of Greek heavy infantry with shock cavalry (and the Persians had horse archers to boot) I have trouble seeing what allowed Alexander this crushing victory.

Caveats: 1) this is my first post so apologies for any Reddit or AskHistorians faux pas. 2) I understand that the size of Persian forces are generally overstated in ancient sources so the extent of the Persian advantage might not be as great as I think

Admittedly I have not done much research on the topic, but I was wondering if bicycles were ever used or envisioned to have a substantial role in armed conflict for the U.S. Did anyone advocate for their inclusion or were there any trial runs? Thanks!

Not only how was the wealth distribution, but how poor were the poorer classes in the colonies compared to the rest of the world?

And as a supplementary question why wasn't the European front in WWII fought in the same way?

The shape of the sword implies a different use than the swords that would come to replace it. Am I right in thinking that, or did Romans use the weapon the same way the long sword would come to be used?

The film is about the final 12 days of Hitler. It's not really meant to be a documentary or anything like that. It's a really good film and I was curious if these is any educational value to be had.

I have heard of cities that have been 'built on top' of another city. Supposedly you could take tunnels down and find complete streets and buildings. Why would they do this as opposed to knocking down what was there and just rebuilding at the same level? Wouldn't there be serious risk of collapse?

Or is this simply urban legend and doesn't actually happen? I can't actually recall a city that this would apply too (maybe New York or Egypt?) but nothing solid.

I know that a rating system was used by the British (and by other navies of the time to some degree) based on the number of carriaged guns the ship carried, but I'm curious if a class system similar to what we use today was used to designate different hull types? Or did a hull design simply depend on which shipwrite was responsible for the construction.