I have several old (50+ years old) tea/coffee cup sets and see them at antique stores all the time and they look like they’re hardly 150ml a lot of the time. Why were they made so small?

Did these "squads" exist primarily for smaller scale combat and chevauchee type raiding? In a larger battle, would they have fought as a unit, or be broken apart and the crossbowmen sent off to group up with other crossbowmen?

I know that Jewish religious texts have very detailed descriptions of persecution before that time, but I don’t know if any of it is historical. When were the first documented cases of anti-semitism?

Hello, i am sorry if this has been asked before i tried googling but could not find anyone asking this,

Like the title says and these questions also, why is there not much stories about allied scientists creating ballistic missiles? Were their ever any research into that area by the allies or did they completely ignore doing any research with that until they captured the German rockets?

Since the professional warriors of the time were generally obligated to perform a set amount of military service on a yearly basis for their liege (I've heard 40 days per year mentioned as a common contractual obligation), and the rest of any given army would be comprised of levied peasants who had crops and animals to tend to, what happened when a conflict became drawn out and the army had to remain on campaign for extended periods of time?

For example, one lord declares war on his neighbor, seeking to press a claim on his land and is assuming a quick victory. However, upon reaching the enemy lord's castle, a lengthy, protracted siege takes place that lasts, say, three months or longer. The war began in Summer but now it is the Fall and time for the harvest.

On one hand, you have the knights and nobles of the army, who have already given their required service for the year by now, and on the other hand, you have thousands of farmers who's crops aren't being harvested sitting in your siege camp.

What do you do as the commanding lord at this point to both keep your army in the field and prevent your economy from being decimated by keeping much of the workforce away for too long?

I recently started reading about norse mythology, and I couldn't help but think that even the "good" gods such as Odin act in ways that, by modern definitions of morality, would be considered unfair and treacherous by many.

As an example, one of the myths that's striked me the most is Fenrir's. He hadn't done anything that could bring bad consequences to Asgard, but he was tricked into being chained up simply because the gods were afraid of him.

That leads to my question: how were the gods' actions perceived by the people who believed and worshipped them? If Odin disregards justice and fairness, is it alright just because he's Odin? Or could it be that all of this is just catholic propaganda?

I remember my high school history teacher telling the class that in Ancient Greece, it wasn't uncommon for people to curse and question the gods. If that's really true, then can the same be said about Ancient Scandinavia?

It dawned on me today that I have no idea historically what the native americans knew about the continent of North America.

If we look at other regions like Asia to Europe we had the spice roads which was an opportunity for not only trade, but knowledge and ideas to flow. This gave the others at least the concept that other places existed. For example, since the 13th century or so (Marco Polo) europe was aware of China and that it bordered an ocean.

I would assume there would have been Native Americans who would have adventured out to these regions, if not a full fledged trade route?

Was there anything like that for Native Americans in the midwest to have visibility into the east or west coast at this time?

What was post-WWII civilian life like in Germany and Sweden (around the years 1945-1949)? Were things "back to normal" in Berlin for the most part? It says the Cold War began 1947, so were most people starting to focus on the Cold War by that point?

Are there any books about this by the way? I'm doing research for a novel I'm trying to write.

Thanks.

Where can I read about the debates around religious freedom in England? I feel like that spans too broad of an area. I'm interested in the act of toleration, atheists, and heresy. The questions I'm wondering about are "When did England stop trying to enforce one religion? What arguments were used against religious freedom? When did people stop torturing heretics? What arguments were used for or against it? When did atheists start becoming tolerated?" I'm really interested in the intellectual history side of it. I've been told enforcing one religion stopped when Charles II became king but I'm not sure.

Hello. The core question that I am interested in is to what extent the idea of "equality" was used as a device in Soviet propaganda. I want to know if the Soviets made regular allusions to the "equality" of their citizens or if they simply referred to their citizens having better lives, being not-oppressed, etc.

IF that question is one that you cannot shed light on for me directly. Could you please recommend for me the best academic books (in English) of the history of Soviet messaging and propaganda that might be able to help me answer this question.

Speaking about High Middle Ages classic "knightly" warrior with Longsword.

It seems like "askhually swords can't do anything against armor and knights used maces and warhammers" has recently become every Joe's go-to whenever any medieval topic pops up somewhere in the internet. While I don't deny the role of polearms on every mediaval battlefield, the useless sword theory just doesn't seem right to me.

If swords were so inferior to other weapons, why did they make so many of them? Surviving medieval armories are equally full of breastplates, bascinets, polearms and Longswords. Many say that sword was used for personal protection, which is true for smaller sidearms (later evolving into Rapiers and Sabres), but Longswords are simply too big for day-to-day use.

Others mention that not everyone would be fighting in full plate, so swords could work against lightly armored combatants, but knights in the 1400s were so much into their knightly stuff, that a status weapon existing only to slap around peasants doesn't make much sense (many at that time would probably also consider fighting non-knights as beneath them). Another thing is that a polearm would work equally well against lightly armored opponent, so there would be little reason to carry around two weapons just to have any use for a sword.

So, what would make a person use a Longsword in a mid-1400s battle of two armies packed head to toe in steel? Is it just more versatile and does many things well enough compared to a more specialized tool like a spear or Bec De Corbin? More dependable because of no wooden parts? Weight distribution and balance make it work differently than polearms? Better for grappling? Maybe fighting a knight was much more stab-centric and chances of landing a good haymaker with a polearm much lower that we would think ?

The title sums it up. The first two pieces of territory that eventually made up "Hong Kong" of today mainly Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were deeded to the U.K. long before the New Territories. Why were they then subsequently included with the New Territories in the 99 year lease agreement?

From what I understand, the Roman Empire and Republic always looked at the East as where the wealth is. This would make sense as France, Germany, England etc. were tribal gaulic people.

I believe this definitely held true during the Middle Ages. Europe was over run by "barbarians" which demolished trade and the economy while the Arabs were having a golden age of wealth. I've also always read that India was pretty much universally always VERY wealthy and the same goes with China. I would imagine 9th century England was much poorer than 9th century India or Persia.

When did the European monarchies start to surpass the prominent Asian civilizations in wealth? Is it primarily due to the founding of the new world? The Renaissance? Improved naval warfare tech? Was their a geographic reason to it?

It’s been my belief that the US took a very lenient stance when re-incorporating the Confederacy back into the United States.

Is this correct? What punitive measures were ever carried out?

Did the United States ever try to divorce itself from Confederate history?

I have been watching Mary Beard’s Roman documentaries on Magellan during lockdown. She mentions that only the citizens had access to most of the city resources. So if I am a first century non-citizen or, god forbid, a slave- how would the authorities recognize that fact when I am queuing up for bread? What is to prevent me from taking advantage of the system and in effect stealing this bread? I assume draconian punishments await me for my indiscretions. What would this experience have been like? Thanks

His main point is that time constantly moves forward so although certain ideas pop up again in time, major historical events do not repeat and he emphasizes that the past and history are two different things. Just because humans repeat actions from their pasts does not mean that history metaphorically repeats.

I think it’s important that this question is answered because if history does not repeat itself what would be the point in learning about it? For trivia’s sake?

TLDR: We’re aware the quote is philosophical/metaphorical and are arguing, “does history repeat itself?”

Are there any accounts of soldiers just pretending to be dead to avoid combat?

For example if a child was born would they be told “you’re Russian” or be told “you’re a soviet”?

The current Lama is seen as a world leader. We're the previous Lamas also viewed this way? What do we know of their works?

I hope this doesn't edge to close to a 'What if' scenario as defined by the rules, but I often hear it said that the Cuban Missile Crisis could have caused an apocalyptic outcome if it went hot, a full scale nuclear war. But I've also heard it said that the ability of both countries to launch a full blown nuclear attack was more stymied than we often tend to think, especially since Nuclear missiles were still relatively uncommon and both sides were relying on bombers. The USA also had a significant advantage in terms of the number of nuclear weapons. How did military planners on both sides expect to approach a war if it was going to happen, and how did they think either country would fare from it? Was there an expectation of world ending destruction, as depicted in a movie like 1984's Threads or anything like that?