I can provide the titles of texts if requested, but more than one source I've read about Meiji History essentially declares that the Emperor of Japan had to be taken by pro-Imperialist forces in order to jump-start the Meiji Restoration, where the last shogun returned rule to the emperor. Why was this the case? Did the emperor need saving? Was he under some kind of house arrest?

Did the Apartheid regime have expansionist policies, especially towards Swaziland and Lesotho considering their positions and sizes? Or did it pursue a policy of cooperation?

This might really be more of a physics question than a history one, but I hope you can help me out or at least point me in the right direction!

Most amateur historians are familiar with the concept that spearmen are effective at defending against cavalry charges. I've even read (in the Sharpe books, so not exactly scholarly but I have heard they're well-researched) that horses would generally refuse to charge spears (or in Sharpe's case, bayonets) suggesting that they worked as a deterrent to charging, rather than just a counter.

However, assuming that the cavalry did successfully urge their horses into charging prepared spears and the spearmen did their job of holding the line and killing the horses, surely this would represent a death sentence for the spearmen too? Googling some statistics, a horse can weigh between 380-1000kg and reach speeds of 88km/h. Could a line of prepared spears (or pikes or bayonets) really expect to stop that level of force from hitting and killing them, even if the horse and rider were also killed?

Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a fairly modern game set in 1403 Bohemia and claims to have a focus on accuracy. In the opening to the game we get a glimpse of what normal village life might have been like.

We see a young adult (presumably in his early 20s) still living with his parents and waking up late after a night of drinking with his buds at the village tavern. He seems to be casually dating one if the bar maids there as his mother pesters him about how the relationship is going, if they have been on any dates lately, ect. The thought of marriage doesn't seem to even be on the table yet. These are some of the main things I noticed but there are a few other social aspects that seem to be very modern to me. How accurate is this depiction of village life?

The family, if I had to guess, seems to be middle class (if that even existed back then) since the father is a black smith and the lord of the land asks him to make a special sword for him. Is life like this for the family only because of their slightly higher status, or did common village folk share some of the same social practices?

Looking at the most popular ones: Vikings, The Last Kingdom, The King, etc. They all show either women warriors or women priests crowning kinds (The King...). Has this ever been the case? I have yet to find any convincing evidence that even the Viking shield maidens ever existed.

I understand that there is a current trendy ideology along these lines, but I don't like the idea of faking history, as most people will simply take what they see in a movie as historical fact.

What are the characteristic features of European feudalism? When does it begin and when does it end? Why does it begin and why does it end? What about regional variations? How was it different from the slave mode of production except in degrees of unfreedom?

What books can be recommended to study this topic in depth?

An answer to any of these questions would be helpful, need not answer all of these.

My daughter asked about this tonight; specifically she was reflecting on the fact that prior to independence, July 4 was not an American holiday, which she found hard to grok. This inspired a brief discussion about the role and celebration of holidays was probably quite different, not least for the pattens of the year likely being different, and the amount of leisure time and or nature/notion of childhood, and family life generally.

I'm reading a number of books on Soviet history, particularly in the years between 1917-1953 and I really can't get a frim grasp on what the different roles of both of these organs were and which was really im charge.

What side of the political spectrum was the French Revolution on?

I was watching a video on the the family trees of Ancient Egyptian dynasties and I had this moment of confusion when I was trying to figure out the lifespans of a couple of the pharaohs in relation to each other. The numbers didn't make sense until I was like "DUH!" its all BCE so the years are all running backwards! It got me wondering though if there are alternative systems for keeping track of those years that would be easier to read and understand because they go in the "right direction"? Could you keep CE 2020-0 as it is, still use BCE 0-50,000+ for things largely beyond the scope of recorded/discovered history, but create a section of dates called say KHE (Known Historical Era) that runs from 8000-0 covering what is currently BCE 0-8000? The idea being that the number of the years would increase rather than decrease as time moves forward in that period. What would be the pros and cons of a system like this beyond just the fact it would obviously be different than what is every historical text out there.

Wikipedia says it had gone extinct by 1700BC, but was still used as a classical language up until 100AD. Was it really the case? If so, what, so to speak, kept it going for so long? And why was its usage eventually discontinued?

Were slaves treated poorly because that's just how people in older ages were or were they treated especially poorly in some unprecedented manner?

Im a big fan of the history of Rome podcast by mike Duncan along with hardcore History by dan carlin. Whats your opinion on these podcasts.( ive listened to all of thier content)

​

anyother pods you would reccomend

Specifically sappers and miners: when the shooting actually started, were they just used as line infantry organized in their own companies? Distributed through their parent regiments? Held in reserve so as to not risk their specialized skills? I know there's a few examples of them breaking down courtyard gates and such when battles occurred near/around villages, but what was the "default"?

Thanks!

I recently learned that Michael Dukakis was poling higher in June of 1988 than Joe Biden is now, and yet he lost badly to George H.W. Bush. How do we account for such an apparently huge swing in public opinion in just five months?

On the Elephant’s Foot’s Wikipedia page, it says “Unyielding to a drill, the mass is quite dense, but it is able to be damaged by an AKM rifle with armor-piercing rounds.”

My question is, what made them think to shoot the radioactive mass? Was there a scientific reason for it?

So in the spirit of pride month, I got to wondering how the Maya and Aztecs felt about homosexuality? Was it socially acceptable, do we have any historical reports on how such individuals may have been viewed? From a religious perspective there seem to be conflicting sources that state the Aztec God Xochipilli may have been a patron of male homosexuality. I feel like if that were true, it would speak greatly to how the Aztec society in particular may have regarded LGBT people.

What were the expected casualty numbers for won vs lost battles?

How many battles would an army last for before more bodies were needed? And how were these bodies replaced while out on a campaign?

The Germanic culture of the time of Julius Caesar was said to be an egalitarian culture. People did not work the same land permanently. No one privately owned land and the land was worked in a more communal manner. Tacitus said that people were equal and had the right to say what they wanted.

Was this an example of pre industrial communism? Is the German culture of pre Roman up to the fall of Rome an example of a more militaristic form of communism?