Do you mean the 127mm Type 89? The 100mm Type 98 was a newer design, the Type 89 was used from 1932 onwards, and ships had already had older mountings refitted with Type 89s. The Type 98 was designed in 1938 and didn't enter service until 1941 or 1942.

>Can anybody explain what it is about monarchies that the Iranian regime is so opposed to?

Perhaps if the monarchy hadn't been, or hadn't been seen as, the puppet of foreign interests, Iranians wouldn't have had such a dislike for it. I'm not sure that the type of government Iran had mattered so much as how it operated. An autocratic government is one thing, but subjecting people to that, political/religious repression, inflation, corruption, and violence made revolution inevitable. If the government had ostensibly been a democracy, the result would have been the same, and the succeeding rulers would have denounced democracy in a similar fashion.

>I find this confusing because it seems to me that the present-day Iranian theocracy is very similar to a monarchy itself.

Superficially, yes, and you can argue that perhaps the theocracy is merely a means to an end for some who seek power, but I don't think it's possible to claim that the systems are the same because you have observed one similarity. In a monarchy a ruler can, within some unofficial limitations, make whatever decisions they wish and are not accountable to a higher authority, nor do their decisions have to come from, or be in line with, precedent. In a theocracy, religion informs the rule of the state, and there are conventions, lines of reasoning, and established precedent for virtually all decisions that do not equate to "Because I say so." from a supreme ruler. Whether it is done sincerely, or as an excuse, is another matter.

The claim was (and still is, by some people) that German was never militarily beaten, it was betrayed by its own politicians (and Jews and socialists, who conspired to ensure the country was defeated). The Dolchstosslegende is a pernicious lie, used and spread by the Nazis in particular.

There isn't really one work or bit of media that is going to catch you up on 'general history'. You might as well start reading a lot of Wikipedia articles or something, seeing as a lot of pop history coverage is, quite frankly, bad. If you need a book, you could try A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bryson, who at least hangs a lot of detail (albeit too much irrelevant minutiae of persons) on his prose, but if you want quality historical knowledge you are going to have to pick a particular part of history and then look for good books covering it.

Because it isn't very good. Carlin has been known to make things up, regularly takes individual instances to represent whole peoples and eras, exaggerates and makes misleading analogies, and when he makes errors (which is too often) he is reluctant to correct them. He became a regular feature over on /r/badhistory for a reason.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/6swvvq/opinion_of_this_sub_on_dan_carlins_hardcore/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/385860/we_all_know_about_godwins_law_and_poes_but_i/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3v63nh/dan_carlins_blueprint_for_armageddon_has_7/

Part of the problem is (and it's a fundamental thing), he's not a historian, and says so as a way to shield himself from criticism, rather than use it to explain why he's made mistakes. His fans use the same excuse, and don't take criticism of his work well. Throughout his work he hasn't shown much compunction about improving, either.

Zamoyski's book on Napoleon is excellent. Roberts is very much a Napoleon fanboy and worships him too much. There's a great discussion here.

>Or did men teach this to women back then too, in a dojo setting?

The system has been relatively stable for a long time. The teachers, up until fairly recently, were overwhelmingly male. Naginatajutsu/kyujutsu would have been a subset of the curriculum of a kobudo, and the teachers would have been expected to know and teach across the curriculum, not just sections of it that women were expected to know. There would have been plenty of female practitioners and experienced students, but female teachers would be unusual, and much more so the higher in the hierarchy you went.

>How do you think LIDAR tech is going to upend our understanding of history?

It isn't, because that isn't how historical study works. Everything you discover using any method is added to what you already know. The most it does is upend people, who either have long-held beliefs about a certain aspect of history, or are crackpots who seize on it as proof their personal (and otherwise unsupported) brand of lunacy is correct and everyone else is wrong. Fruit loops, like Hancock for instance, always talk about totally upsetting established history, because they don't have a single bit of proof for what they believe, and they desperately want some evidence, any evidence, for what has become their individual religion, if not brand.

>Maybe give us a better perspective on those "barbarians" that invaded Rome

If you're talking about Alaric and the Goths, his name was Flavius Alaricus, and he was a Roman citizen. We have plenty of evidence showing Rome didn't 'fall' as commonly thought, and the pop history narratives around it are comprehensively wrong, based on writings that are hundreds of years out of date.

>or possibly cities that were erased before history.

LIDAR is great for finding sites. It's not going to find something that isn't there. This thread shows what LIDAR surveys can find, as an example. It's a fantastic method, relatively fast, surprisingly accurate. But like any method, it has to be used in conjunction with many others, over the course of years, to do patient, careful research to establish new evidence, and add that evidence to what has already been accumulated.

The Commentarii de Bello Gallico is an exercise in exaggeration, written to give an audience a totally distorted view, which was probably effective because there was so little contrary information to combat it. The fearsome Suevi who have no neighbours for six hundred miles, who don't drink wine for fear of becoming effeminate, who only wear animal skins, and so on, are among many other tribes who are carefully depicted (when the text isn't outright contradicting itself) as being completely at odds with Rome, and requiring domination.

It does talk quite openly about not just what we would consider Roman military victories, but also the raiding and destruction of camps, including the killing of women and children, and sometimes mass suicide, caused by one misfortune or another. These are all, one way or the other, perfectly acceptable for the time, and any underhandedness or duplicity on the part of the Romans is always preceded, of course, by some nefariousness on the part of the barbarians.

Inflating the number of enemy was common, and was done to either heighten the glory of Rome and the Roman force and their commander, or to help explain away defeats. This has a long history of use in Rome.

>Would it have ended the war faster if the Allies had developed operational jets in time for major combat operations?

I don't see how. While jet aircraft were often more capable, pioneering them is one thing, getting the massive production lines ready during wartime when airframes are needed is another. Without interrupting production, you would need an enormous duplication of effort to bring in jet aircraft in sufficient numbers to make a substantial difference, and that difference still pales next to the leap forward in destructive power nuclear weapons offered. The first nuclear weapons offered 15-20 kt blast yields, which is 15,000-20,000 tons of TNT. In order to drop that much conventional explosive, you would need hundreds of B-52s, which takes more time, effort, fuel, organisation, maintenance, spares, etc.

The Warsaw Pact was essentially meant to mirror NATO as a military alliance. The countries are where they where then, they haven't moved or anything. East Germany no longer exists as it reunified with West Germany. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, the Czech Republic all joined NATO over the past 20-odd years. The USSR dissolved.

>Was it possible to wage winter warfare in regions with milder climates such as Palestine, Carthage, or Sicily?

The issue is not just weather. You still see cold winters in places like Palestine, but there is also a dearth of food and fodder; many forces throughout history relied on foraging, stealing, buying, or otherwise obtaining food from local sources as they moved. There tends to be rather less of it in winter, which makes supply more difficult. Winter campaigning isn't impossible, but even with a real logistics system, it is more difficult, and there are often other administration issues with maintaining a force year-round. There was an expectation for many forces that, outside of a campaigning season, they would have time to go home, or otherwise find somewhere to become established and start to prepare for the next campaign. Transport, supply, maintenance, etc are all more difficult in winter, and you also have additional costs.

Winter campaigning was done inconsistently for a long time, from the Vikings, to mercenary companies in medieval Italy, to various Roman campaigns, but consistent winter fighting is very modern, and was still influencing plans (especially concerning agricultural workers) in the 20th century. It became less of an issue thanks to industrial and technological factors, so there isn't one point you can definitively identify as the year, but around the 19th century, certainly the latter half, is when armies began to campaign regardless (often with awful results).

Authentic to whom? It might look authentic to us, to the extent we could validate its authenticity from other finds and knowledge from that era.

There's no reason it couldn't be Roman rather than Romano-British. There was no sharp cut-off point for Romans in Britain, they were still constructing villas after 410.

> and their invasion was very immanent.

The Soviets were completely unprepared to invade Japan. Preliminary battles showed the Japanese could fight the Soviets to a standstill, and Japanese resistance, always stiff, was expected to be extreme. The Soviets had a massive shortage of ships necessary for amphibious invasion, and their previous efforts had been shockingly bad in terms of communication (no ship to shore radio contact, for instance) and cohesion.

>They were fanatically anti-communist.

The Japanese were also rabidly anti-American.

In the Middle Ages people bathed regularly, and bath houses were literally one of the most, if not the most, popular places to go.

Hygiene took a notorious nose dive in the following centuries (King Louis XIV was the 17th-18th century, for instance), which were not in the Middle Ages.

They used coinage, or tally sticks, or any kind of common unit of exchange they agreed on. The important thing was having a medium of currency to enable trade; what was fairly uniform was the realisation that the form itself was not that important. It didn't matter if the medium was valuable in and of itself. By the early medieval age coinage was well established.

>Are the German populace aware during WWII that Hitler was murdering millions of Jews on the concentration camps during holocaust?

Yes. The concentration camps were an extensive network of thousands of sites, each one of which took in prisoners far in excess of what it could hold, over the course of the war. Guards, soldiers, and civilians took photographs, sent letters home, and talked with their families about what was going on. The bureaucracy handling the Holocaust itself, dealing with prisoner transfer, administration, cataloguing the belongings of those murdered, etc, was also tens of thousands of people. It was an enormous effort, and everyone in Germany, at some point, witnessed part of what was going on. The Nazis were mostly careful not to expose exactly what was happening, because of their earlier experience murdering people in the Aktion T4 programme, which roused protests, but the Germans knew people were being murdered.

Even if it hadn't been common knowledge and gossiped about everywhere (the first concentration camp, Dachau, opened in 1933), many people uncovered evidence of what was going on in concentration camps relatively early in the war (Witold Pilecki sent out reports in 1940, for instance), and this was sent on to other countries, including the UK, which announced the existence of the camps, and their real purpose, on the BBC world service in 1941.

>if yes, did they support that event?

It's difficult to characterise the German attitude to the Nazi government, but most Germans never actively opposed anything the Nazis did. The vast majority of Germans simply 'went along' with it, even if they privately disagreed. German resistance to Nazi actions was very, very sparse. There is precisely one protest we know about. Antisemitism was practically a national pastime, which served to quell a lot of dissent.

There's some proper looney tunes ideas in this thread. Hard to work out why people are so unhinged over such a relatively simple idea, but horses can be lots of different sizes (they still are today!) and still be used to carry riders. Do a simple google search and you can find horse sizes can vary quite a lot. People ride ponies all the time, quite happily.

Absolutely no idea why people are talking about breaking horses backs and stirrups and ancient paintings. Lay off the youtube videos for a little while.

>simply because horses were too small, the weight of rider would break the horses back and throw the rider down and kill or injure him (and injury was death).

You have absolutely no evidence for any of this. Please show us a single source.

> because if you look at the horses pulling chariots in paintings from the battle of Kadesh about 3500 years ago, they are clearly much smaller than modern horses

Cool of them to ensure everything was depicted to scale.

> Remember, I'm suggesting horses were domesticated tens of thousands of years prior.

With absolutely no evidence.

> Before the introduction of stirrups you would have a lot less stability.

Stirrups are considered important for allowing you to fight more effectively while on horseback. Simply riding without stirrups is not a problem at all.

> just no way to prove it.

So how do you know that, then, yet the rest of the world remains blissfully unaware?

>The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

Prior to WWI, Germany had tried expansion overseas, and found itself promptly cut off, as war commenced, by much superior navies. This expansion was explained by German politicians and thinkers as a natural consequence of population expansion; one required the other, whichever way you worked it out, so post-WWI, with overseas colonies gone, the natural place for territorial expansion would be somewhere safe from naval interference, where Germans could travel back and forth without any other country intervening. Somewhere contiguous with the existing German state would be perfect, for instance. The extermination of 'lesser' races was essential to Nazi ideology, and taking land those races formerly occupied was part and parcel of that, to the extent that it was emphasised that this was the 'natural' thing to do. In order for Germany to expand and become the sole real power in Europe, it would need vast amounts of land, resources, and an even larger population to draw on for labour. The populations already living there were 'destined' to be swept away by the unstoppable might of Germany.