I am watching "The Patriot" so my history is already muddled there but in the battle scenes, both sides always line up in single file and fire a volley. I get why they would do that (flintlocks were not modern rifles) but my whole thinking was, since each side essentially tells you when they're going to fire, why not just drop to the ground?

Apart from the possibility of hitting someone behind you, the shots would sail overhead.

Was it part of the gentleman quality that combat had at the time?

I have an idea for a story and doing some research.

Were there any groups and/or organizations that were followers of Hades, who acted in his name?

Were there any tyrants, oppressors, or evil rulers in Greece?

What's the oldest known secret organization and how far is it from Ancient Greece? Are there Secret Organizations that have supposed or confirmed connections to others?

Were the Persians considered the Greeks mortal enemies? What did they think of the Gods the Greeks believed in? Did they have any prominent rulers or figures that hated Greece? That would be considered evil tyrants? Did they have any connections to secret organizations?

Hi - I am looking for details about the Crusaders' march from Acre to Arsuf. I found one source that Lionheart sailed there on his ship. Did he ever come ashore? Do we know the locations they camped at on the way south? Another source said he brought with him several hundred Muslim prisoners and executed at least one a day on this trek. Did they experience any stormy weather?

I live in a small town whose library would not have books about this even if it were open. My internet searches help, but leave me with unanswered questions.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Kristy

So Sen. Tom Cotton (among others) has described that the Union was founded on a way that slavery would end by itself “naturally”, he also claims that the Founding Fathers had that idea in mind when forming the Union. Does this holds any true?

Enter use*

I am looking to do a bit of research for a project on the Sengoku Jidai but am struggling to find any primary sources amongst the secondary material. What are the names of the primary material and where can I go about finding it in either Japanese or English?

Perhaps there were different, subjective and cultural perceptions of beauty during the times of antiquity, though I have heard that Cleopatra was not as beautiful as she was initially presented to be. Is there any truth to this claim?

I began reading a shortened, prose version of the Ramayana and the scene where Rama strings the bow to wed Sita immediately reminded me a similar scene in the Odyssey. These are both ancient epic poems and I thought the resemblance was uncanny, even though one took place in Greece and the other in India.

Were practices like these actually common in the ancient world (ie, Greece and India)? If it's not, is it a literary device or metaphor that goes over my modern head? Is the fact that both of these stories contain a similar, major plot point evidence to suggest cross-cultural interactions? Or is it all just a coincidence that I'm reading too much into?

The little I know about this war makes it seem like it was a war of unprecedented viciousness and brutality, fought to defend British economic interests, where the British won a crushing victory, and then granted the Union of South Africa independence just a few years later.

At the time of the French revolution and Napoleonic period, Royal navy ships were very often named after Greek and Roman heros. The hundreds of captured French ships were often not renamed. I.E HMS Magnamine, HMS Modeste. Was this based on superstition that a ship should rarely be renamed or was there a certain amount of "hey! We took your ship", at the time?

For e.g., we refer to medieval France as 'France', and not 'Capetian empire', or medieval England as 'England' and not 'Norman Empire'.

While on the other continent, we say Ayyubid sultanate, not Egypt, Delhi Sultanate/Mughal Empire, not India, Pagan dynasty, not Burma, or Safavid Empire, not Persia.

Even Byzantine Empire had many different ruling dynasties, but we all refer to them as part of this "Byzantine Empire", while for China, we refer to their different dynasties as different states. We say Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, etc as if they are different states, while not doing the same for different Byzantine dynasties.

So why is it like that?

Most books about Italian fascism seems to focus on it as an ideology (was it revolutionary or reactionary, how significant was influence from socialism, was it a political religion, was it just an italian thing yada yada). What are some books that focus on its practical part? I mean the strategy followed by Mussolini and the party, its relationship with different classes, organizations and the Church, its policies, etc.

Hello All,

I am seeking my Japanese and asian history scholars.

I have a few questions regarding the topic.

How exclusive was Japanese slavery? Was it practiced to the extent of American and European slaver? Was it more like indentured servitude? How affordable was a slave? Was it only exclusive to the ruling class? What was the rights and social standing of a slave if any? How did the average person view the practice?

On an off topic question: How long would it of taken for the mongols to sail from Korea to Japan? How long would it of taken to travel from Mongolia to Japan with 13th century technology available at the time?

I know that after Napoleon's final defeat, the Bourbon's were recrowned. The first one (Louis XVIII) was fairly moderate and seemed to be interested in knitting the country back together, and the second one (Charles X) was super conservative and led to another revolution.

After defeating the French armies, why didnt the UK or another of the Allies attempt to directly administrate the conquered French people, and/or incorporate it directly into their already established boundaries? Was it just too expensive? Or too difficult?

Why go through all that war and bloodshed and difficulty, only to walk right out of France again leaving everything politically unstable and primed for yet another revolution that could have all kinds of negative impacts to sorrounding nations?

Cheers

I'm sure most people know the general events of the Space Race and who achieved what and when, but I wonder how far along the Soviet Union was to landing their own moon missions. Did they even think such a thing was possible and if they did, how close were they to starting their own mission? Did their early advantage in the race factor into their decisions?

Being a person who loves world military history I always like to study various parts. But every now and again things come up that I don’t understand. Like for instance why was Germany the one punished so severely following the end of the first world war? Nowhere in any of my history books have I be able to figure out why this is the case. Some people make it sound like Germany was the one who started the war. But in every documentary I’ve seen, every book I’ve read and all the other areas where I am checked unless I am misinterpreting something the Austro Hungarian‘s were the ones who basically started the conflict. Now yes the whole snowball effect started when a Serbian nationalist shot Archduke Frans Ferdinand but I still don’t understand why in the end Germany seemed to get the rawest of the raw end.

To that I post these two questions. Firstly why was Germany the one the seemingly became the poster child for the end of the first world war? If that even is the right way to describe it. And secondly is there a possibility be at either theory or night that if the Germans had not been so harshly treated could that have potentially prevented the second world war?