Did they really expect fewer casualties when military technology had advanced since Napoleon? Obviously, part of the immense Napoleonic casualties was based on the large armies, but the percentage losses in the Napoleonic War’s major battles were comparable, if not worse, than at Civil War bloodbaths like Chickamauga and The Wilderness.

With everything that is floating around in popular culture regarding these two figures it becomes, if not hard, then at the very least tedious to sort through the falsehoods and sensationalism to find out the empirical truth. It becomes even more difficult when the figure belongs to a different language sphere. Basically, my question is, what are some good, scholarly, reputable English language sources on Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory? Preferably something peer-reviewed or at leased published by a trustworthy scholar. I'd like to know if Vlad and Elizabeth were really as terrible as they were reported to be or whether they were much more complex and nuanced than previously thought. Thank you.

Title says it all. Did Napoleon or, in turn, German High Command in either World War study Karl XII's invasion of Russia in the Great Northern War before their wars? Did Carolus study even earlier ones? You read alot especially of WW2 German officers reading about Napoleon before and during their own invasion. Thanks in advance

Most of the books in English that I find are about the country after USSR/Russian conquest, which isn’t very relevant to what I’m interested in seeing. I’m particularly looking for something on King Vakhtang IV and his father Alek I, the life of their noblemen, and the downfall of the Bagrationi dynasty near the end of the 15th century. I’ve been browsing the government website and the national library page for Georgia, but often find myself having to rely on google translate to actually read anything

For some time now I have been meaning to branch out into other pieces of media for historical research (more specifically the World Wars) other then videos, movies and games. So are there any book series’s, authors or novels you would recommend to read? Ideally I’m looking for a book to give precise accurate detail and I am not to picky as to wether it’s a general broad overview or about a specific front, event or character.

I was talking with a friend about the history and legacy of the British empire and the role of the monarch. I pointed out that the monarch doesn’t exercise political power and is purely ceremonial, but I’m not sure when that transition actually occurred.

I know that the creation of Parliament in 1215 and then the English Civil Wars in the 1600s greatly curtailed the power of the monarch. When did the British monarchy become purely ceremonial as it is now?

In games and movies, it's common to see mercenaries switching sides to the highest bidder. Is that historically accurate? Is there famous examples of battles won or lost that way?
I'm writing a story, and I'd like to study a bit this topic.

I don't want to break the twenty. year rule, it's just weird to see old books and movies talk about qualudes or cocaine being widely available but this more potent drug wasnt really used.

Hello I'm reading China by J. A. G. Roberts, and in the chapter on the Qing dynasty he mentioned the 8 legged essay. Google shows very few comprehensive results as to what exactly the essay is supposed to be; the samples I see are very difficult to understand for me. The wiki article says that the essay supposedly may have contributed to cultural stagnation, but I'm not sure how accurate such an assertion can be given that the civil service and aristocracy is usually a minority of any society? Any input is appreciated

It seems there is much more written about IRA gunrunning from the United States, weapons being given by Gaddafi’s Libya, EOKA, etc. down to the exact weapons and quantities, but not comparable documentation about Loyalist gunrunning operations. Where did the UVF, UDA/UFF, RHC, etc. acquire arms in that era?

Was it seen as an honor? As suicidal? Both?

Bonus points: how did a soldier end up in the first rank? Was it a punishment? Did they have a say in the matter?

Perhaps it's interesting to contrast with Japanese food. There are 14,000 (self-reported) Chinese-Peruvians and 22,000 (self-reported) Japanese-Peruvians and yet Japanese food traditions are not as well known in Peru.

Before the industrial era, the major attraction to gold, silver, and platinum were largely aesthetic. Gold being slightly rarer than platinum could explain why it could of been more desirable than platinum.

Silver and Gold ended up being used for coinage because it had no practical use during the advent of metal currency. I am merely wondering why platinum was not a common material for coinage. Was it merely due to chance? Or being so similar to silver it would of been confusing?

​

In other words if history were to start over would we always arrive at silver and gold as the bulk of our coinage or is it largely a toss up between the 3?

OK so I understand how rare social mobility was in the middle ages and also how big of a time frame that is. But my question is for a very broad time range. Are there any documented occurrences, at all, anywhere throughout Europe in the entirety of the middle ages, of a peasant who became a lord or even a king? I'm interested in the teachings of John Ball and how the absolute cultural norm was to accept your birth.

I'm just wondering if there is even a single documented instance of a peasant or villein or lower class individual gaining great wealth. Thanks.

There seems to be this idea, especially within like, highschool education, that native Americans had no conception of owning land. This has always seemed really odd considering the fact that there was at least one native American civilization in the Mississippi Valley region that built a city which, at the time was roughly the size of London and is thought to have had an economy based partially on hoe manufacturing/exports, which seems like it would have been hard to do without some form of personal or familial system of land ownership. All of this is in addition to having a trade network that would presumably have spread information of this city far outside its borders. Like, it was a few hundred years before settlers arrived, but that seems like it would be well within the scope of oral tradition (although its possible I'm biased towards the longevity of information as someone who lives in a society with writing). Basically im asking three questions. First, did the people of civilizations like Cahokia have some alternative form of land ownership that was incompatible with European conniptions? Secondly, if not. how was it possible that the native population forgot about the concept of land ownership in a fairly short period of time? Third, if they didn't, why is it that this misconception is so widespread?

I am of course familiar with the basics of Alexander’s life and campaigns, but I’ve never quite understood how the King of a tiny Macedonian kingdom managed to subdue all of Greece (minus Epirus), let alone conquer Egypt and Persia. Where did he get all these soldiers from? And if he had the power to conquer all the way to India, why didn’t he take Epirus?

I’m a zoomer and had never heard of Rhodesia until this year. I have some general questions.

I’m trying to learn more about history and I was wondering if anyone could help me put it into historical context and I’m just very lost. So if I could get some help or links to easy to understand info that would be great.

When I hear people talk about it they often just say “it was a disaster” and “they tried to start a new white supremacist state in the middle of Africa” but nobody explains anything more.

Why did that happen? What happened? Who was involved and what did they want?

What did this lead to in world history? I hear people talk about it regarding the uk and war and geopolitics and stuff but I don’t really understand exactly what.

It seems like there are a few obvious holes that might be poked:

• How much rum was actually issued, and was it specifically reserved for periods of combat?
• Did the army actually want inebriated troops fighting?
• Were there equivalents in non-British forces? Were the French getting wine rations? Did the Germans and Austrians get servings of schnapps?
• Was rum issued outside the Western Front?

While it was certainly a commentary on the fights and the growing divide between Federalists and Democratic Republicans in the US, did the Reign of Terror influence Washington's thoughts? It seems like the contentious election the country was on the eve of in 1796 as Washington gave this address might have alarmed Washington because of the violence the world had just witnessed France go through after their own republican revolution; violence caused, in part, by friction between rival political factions?

People often cite it as a prescient prediction of future politics, but I imagine that level of political violence would have alarmed many Americans, but also Washington in particular? Would Washington's audience have understood this address in the context of the French Revolution?

More broadly, did the worst excesses of the French Revolution during the Terror influence the Founding Father's worries about too strong of a federal government, even one, ostensibly, democratically elected? Were people actually worried Jefferson or Adams was going to violently purge the other after the election of 1796 the way the Girondists had been just a few years earlier? Or were American attitudes more "well, that can't happen here"?