See above!

In ‘Alexander the Great’ by Philip Freeman - “Through the creative use of camels to terrify the Lydian cavalry, Cyrus took Sardis” “Alexander had no camels and no clear idea how to take Sardis” (pg 85)

How were these camels used as such an important military resource/strategy, even for Alexander two centuries later if he had them? How did they “terrify” enemies?

I'm researching the history of racism against celtic and asian people around the world. Are there any good books about the subject(s)? Thank you in advance

Hello, are there rules to paint a pavise? Last quarter of the 15th century, flanders. I'm thinking of dividing the shild into four. On the left the cote of arms of the lord of Gruuthuse. On the right the cote of arms of the Duke of Burgundy. Beneath the St George's Cross, as a relation to the English crown. Below that the crowned B. who symbolized the relationship with the city of Bruges. Three golden balls as a personal touch, winner of the marksmen's party. I understand it's a specific question. A referral is, of course, also nice.

In some of Lovecraft's works there's no obvious racism, but in others I can see it. I wonder if, when he was writing short stories for pulp magazines, people saw his racism, or was it something only his friends knew about? And, at that time in the US, did most of his readership care at all?

Biremes and Triremes and even Hexaremes seemed all the rage in antiquity, but by they no longer seem to appear in any records later on. Even the famed Venetian galleasses, known for resembling huge floating fortresses, only had one deck of oars. Why was this the case?

I really don’t want to get political, so I’m just going to say the definition of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with free access of goods and shared social ownership of the means of production, as explained by Marx and his definitions from Marxism. Of course, that’s not what any of the proclaimed “communist” or even “socialist” states say they are. But let’s just hypothetically say it is. Did they really kill so many people up to 100 million, and did the economic system itself do that?

I picked this up out of curiosity and I’ve found that, for an academic text, Churchill paints a genuinely interesting picture of British Isles’ history (disclaimer: still in volume one) but I’m wondering given the man’s own background and views if it might be a bit biased. What’s the historiography of Churchill look like? Any particular biases or critiques I should pay heed to as a layman?

I've seen many questions recently asking how Cortés managed to topple the mighty Aztec empire with his relatively small contingent of men and horses. The consensus seems to be that he didn't, and that his native allies did the brunt of the toppling. The Spaniards were merely the spark that set the fall of the Aztecs into motion, and they would have been wiped out had they not exploited the empire's internal divisions.

With that being established, how on earth did the Spanish consolidate their control over Mexico in the century or so after 1519? Why did their undefeated native allies meekly submit to the Spanish, who were merely one small part of a larger anti-Aztec coalition? How did the tiny number of Spaniards who settled there manage to establish full political control, place themselves at the apex of the Mexican social hierarchy, and herd the natives into encomiendas where they would live as serfs, adopting the Spanish language and Catholicism?

In a lot of American Civil War battles, e.g. Gettysburg, Spotsylvania Court House etc. the number of wounded far exceeded the number of the dead.

This begs the question, what were the survival rates of these wounded soldiers in the days and weeks after each battle?

I'm not sure if I can post this here but I'll ask anyways. I would really like to study history when I go to college next year but I'm really concerned about what will come after I finish college. I was wondering what could I potentially work as with a History degree ?

I am reading Eleanor of Aquitaine by Ralph Turner. On page 219 he states (from John of Salibury 1178 records) that states Conan of Brittany complaint against the English king for the fate of his daughter. Handed over to him as hostage: She had been a virgin, but that he had made her pregnant, committing treachery, adultery and incest," but in the notes the part from John of Salusbury is completely different and relates to adultery as her mother was henry mothers half sister illegitimate not that he had made her pregnant. It also states that at age 20 she was "forced" to marry Geoffrey. I've never heard of either of these referenced. Are either of these incidents indicated elsewhere or more probable the author's invention? Help would be appreciated

It seems wierd that in a time when mathematics, chemistry,physics, even biology was developing at high speeds, the connection between washing your hands before performing surgery and less chance of infection was completely unknown.

This is a long-winded series of questions so sorry in advance - I’ve been reading about Japan in WW2, there are a few things I’m not totally clear on, and I thought it best to group them together. Feel free to answer any part - thanks for any and all responses

1. Why did the Allies allow Hirohito to remain as Emperor of Japan after the end of the war? Was there any backlash in the West against this?

2. What are attitudes in Japan like concerning the Nanking massacre? Is denialism confined only to extremist nationalists or is it more prominent?

3. According to Wikipedia, “The Taiwanese people reportedly never have the same empathy towards the mass killing event as their Chinese Mainlander counterparts do”. Why is this?

I'm wondering about say 1400AD on, as it seems like trade across the world really started to ramp up and change forms/methods. But I'm not familiar enough with the area to know if there's a particular time period that would have seen a lot of impact.