I listened to a podcast about the punic wars recently. Hannibal was essentially trying to separate Rome from its city state allies. Some if them did eventually come across to Hannibals cause. Presumably they fought with whatever equipment they had to hand. How would the Romans army have known friend from foe in close combat?

Similarly, add in mercenaries and slaves pressed into service with the promise of freedom and you have a lot of ethnic diversity and presumably, a lot of different styles of armor and weaponry

With armies of tens of thousands of men, you're not going to know everyone on 'your side', and it doesn't sound to me like everyone on a side would have been kitted out exactly the same.

So you're in the midst of battle in the Punic Wars. You turn around and theres someone you don't recognise. You have a split second to decide if they are friend or foe. What cues inform your actions?

I hope this is the correct place to post this. Thinking about ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Africans, etc. If there's no natural ice, did they have any idea about ice?

I assume populations were larger, but were sightings more common? What superstitions might a peaceful Dane attach to them? Any practical use for a sighting? My understanding is that whaling was starting to be a thing, but not much of an industry yet. I'm curious what non-viking Scandinavians of the "Viking Age" thought anout these great monsters of the ocean.

The stirrup is often described as one of the most important developments in warfare before gunpowder. But why did it take so long to come up with it? Horses were domesticated around 4.500 BC but the stirrup was only invented some time in the first millennium BC. Maybe even as late as around 200-100 BC in the Roman world.

How didn't anyone think of the idea sooner? It seems like a fairly simple piece of technology that wouldn't require a lot of special knowledge or ressources to come up with.

I'm not a horseman so there's probably something I haven't realised about riding in the ancient times so please feel free to enlighten me.

Why were these territories left out by the European powers?

There is Pseudo-Geber, Pseudo-Cicero, Pseudo-Euclid, and many other pseudos identified by modern scholars. Did premodern scholars not have faith in their own work?

When I read historical books or historical claims anywhere, I feel I have no way to assess the validity of the claims made. Do they have the facts correct? Do they interpret the facts in a reasonable way? Are there different schools of history which could offer an alternative explanation or a different way of understanding the issue? All I can do is believe what is being said. I would like to correct this. What book would you recommend for getting an understanding on the methodology of history, so I can be not just a passive absorber but a critical reader?

With the given example, they are brothers, and Joseph's influence directly relies on Napoleon, but even so there is complexity of law between two monarchs under the same banner. Napoleon allowed one of his Marshalls to become crown prince of Sweden, which eventually led to war. Would it be dependant on the agreement between the two autocrats? Would there be a certain tax on the puppet Country of manpower and resources? Would the monarch be allowed general control of his Country but have to report to the higher power in all things? I am curious how much power and influence a puppet monarch might have over a Country that is a part of a greater Empire/Kingdom

How large were the lands of Dukes, Earls, Barons, Lords? How much people would they usually have? If one plot of land grows to big would they split it in half and have another Lord take rule of it?

Is it a common misconception that the line formations used by the British in the Revolutionary War were a result of them being honorable or stupid, rather than being more advantageous than less orderly formations?

I've heard elementary school textbooks in the US often claim this.

I am specifically interested in any reliable sources explicitly identifying a common misconception.

And/Or other large passenger ships of the era. That's the only one I know by name that popped in my head for obvious famous reasons. I'm envisioning chamber pots galore but wasn't sure if it was a little more savvy than that, especially for the wealthy.

Could they be openly flaunted? What were punishments like for breaking them?

This question came to my mind and I wanted to know about it from the perspective of historians.

When the Romans landed in 43 AD to open up the Conquest of Britain, I heard that the Celts and other Britons were amazed by Roman technology and weapons. Was the difference of development and customs between them, similar as when the Spanish made first contact with the inhabitants of the New World?

Historians of Reddit, as someone with no knowledge between the initial reactions and later perceptions of the Romans, their things and their culture by the inhabitants of Ancient Britain, suchs as the Picts and the Celts, what was that historic meeting and appraisal like from the britonic perspective?

All humans grow hair all over their bodies. But the removal or grooming of this hair seems to have always been a very gendered practice. Men can have beards and moustaches, women cannot; men can have body hair, women cannot, etc.

Has it always been like this? Has hair on women always been seen as something that must be removed ?

I'm aware of the Indo-Greek and Graeco-Bactrian kingdoms on which there is a decent amount of information, but I havent been able to find out what happened to these settlers in Persia proper or Mesopotamia. Where they just assimilated over time or is there any evidence of distinct Greek settler populations surviving in these regions into the later Parthian/Sassanid periods?

Did companies get compensations for bombing damages caused in WW2 during and / or after the war ?