Assuming they were out on the march...did they have servants cook for them? What would they be eating?

Even when the army is victorious, the soldiers on the front line were almost certain to die in warfare. So, how did armies determine who goes on the front line?

Looking at the list of nations to declare on Germany there's a large number of declarations in '44-'45 from countries that hadn't and wouldn't take any serious actions in the war (Turkey, Liberia, Ecuador, etc.) What pushed these countries to declare and what benefits, if any, did they or the allies expect to gain from these declarations?

Thank you for your time

While emperors continued to be deposed throughout the Dominate and Byzantine eras, murder, as a means to this end, became increasingly less common. Did other methods such as exile and/or imprisonment simply become preferred instead? If so, why?

What caused emperor assassinations to become a much more rare occurrence?

Nowadays we tend to think of eggs as a food to be consumed fresh, and they can last days in refrigerators. But how did folks in the Middle Ages preserve them? I know that in China and Southeast Asia they've been making century eggs for, well, centuries - did Europe have a process like that, or what? How widespread was it?

I know that the Bubonic Plague started in China and then spread to Europe through the Silk Road. However, I noticed that it didn't spread far into sub-Saharan Africa (despite there being trade between different parts of Africa). Also, it didn't seem to spread far in India, despite the fact that they were members of the Silk Road as well. Why didn't it spread to Japan or Korea, either?

Edit: naval engagements to ones like Savo Island like Guadalcanal where Japanese warships attacked the Marines and the US ships supporting them

Even before 1860 and the secession, why was the North pursuing anti-slavery policy? Why did the North care so much? Was it just a response to Southern bungling, self-fulfilling their own prophecy, and hand-forcing?

Was it

-Economics? (Industry + Ag seemed to work pretty well)

-Morality? (I doubt it)

-Eventual bloc voting power ?

• Federal emphasis in Federalism over States’ Rights?

• Sectionalism pissing contest?

I know it’s complex with a lot of ins and a lot of outs. I also cross posted a bit with r/HistoryTeachers and this is not giving the South a pass on the States’ Rights (to enslave, own, & exploit human beings) argument. I’d love a bit more perspective on the Northern perspective :

What was the North’s skin in the game ?

Why was Bristol not chosen? It was geographically more aligned with Wessex. Wessex also had the most influence on England being created, Danelaw didn't need to be entered to access Bristol. Surely these factors would have given Bristol a bigger advantage.

It has a river very similar to London’s so has good sea access. It has good access to Europe, including Southern Europe and also Africa, and in later years the Suez Canal.

Even if Bristol wasn’t chosen to be the capital, why does it not have a much bigger influence in modern day England/UK? It has all the features for a city to thrive and be the the second biggest city in the UK, but it is dwarfed by Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool.

I often hear people say the Aztecs believed they needed to have massive sacrifices to literally make the world go round /keep the sun moving which would indicate that the massive Aztec empire existed at the beginning of time. Did they not record their conquest of the Mayans or any earlier history in their history?

I have always enjoyed slave narrative tracts by people who managed to escape the chattel slavery of the American south, as it's one of the best ways to read firsthand accounts from people who were once enslaved about what slavery was like for them.

Recently, I started watching the hilarious and incredibly historically inaccurate show about Catherine the Great's rise to power, The Great (forgivable as it notes it isn't even close to accurate on the show's title card). It reminded me of something I've always wondered about Russian serfs.

Russian history is something I happen to know enough about to know that the serfs weren't freed in Russia until the same decade as the slaves of the U.S., and I have read up on a few eras of Russia's history. But I admit that I've never read anything by someone claiming to be a serf who managed to get out of serfdom.

I've read accounts of kindly landowners treating the serfs like children, I've read reports by intelligentsia members who denounced serfdom, and I've read about the bouncing views on serfs from Peter the Great to Alexander II, but nothing from someone who once was a serf (I assume the person would have to be a former serf, as from everything I've read there were no learned serfs).

Does such a thing exist at all? Or was serfdom such that escape and betterment was near impossible and thus no serf ever had the chance to speak up for himself?

The area today known as Croatia seems to have been invaded and controlled by huge empires over the past thousand years. The Venetians, the Ottomans, and then the Austrians. But instead of speaking Venetian, Turkish, or German, Croatia seemed to maintain the use of the Croatian language throughout. Why is this the case?

In almost all cases other than Africa they almost wiped out the inhabitants of a certain part of the country, and pretty much ethnically cleared an area for European settlers. Only leaving behind a minority that would either assimilate or not be a threat.

But they didn't do this with Africa, why?

i know the anglo-saxons are a thing but what aew the differences? did they look different? when the angles came to england did they intermingle with the saxons? thanks!

When did, for example, the Byzantines changed their calendar from the AUC system to the BC/AD reference? Or did they even use that system at all? Europe maintained the Julian Calendar for the months, but how did the birth of Christ made its way to become the reference for counting the years?

I have just finished a semester of history in school, and I have ironically become more interested in the subject now that I don't HAVE to study it. I've been trying to find some movies or shows to watch based on the cold war, and i just saw the hunt for red october and the bridge of spies. I'm about to put on a show called spy that takes place in israel/palestine in the 60s, but before i start watching it, i kinda wanna know more about the situation in israel and palestine in the 60s. I did some googling but i really couldnt find anything concrete from that spesific time period. Would anyone here be able to give me a overview of what was going on there? Who supported who, who did what etc. Thank you so much in advance

In my most recent play through of Crusader Kings II, my wife (the queen of Asturias and princess of France) was diagnosed with cancer at 29 and after a "successful treatment" she finally died at the age of 32.

That's a great (tragic) story. But it got me thinking about the medieval understanding of cancer.

Would a medieval European noble even get diagnosed with "cancer"? (as in a disease with that name) Was there knowledge of the disease at the time? What would a "successful treatment" entail? Can you give some examples of nobles who may have suffered from it?

Thank you!

Hello, I should preface by saying that I am a newly trained History teacher and will be starting my first job in September. This school has some really interesting units in its History department, including one that bridges the gap between Roman history and early Medieval, by looking at the first Islamic empires.

This is a Year 7 (11-12 year old) module, however I always like to ensure that my teaching is up to date, and that the pupils can gain the best possible historical education, not just necessarily 'these things happened, then these things happened'. I like my pupils to think about historians and current historical debate, which I have successfully done with classrooms throughout my training year.

However enough about me. Im very unfamiliar with the early Islamic empires, I only know that they expanded incredibly quickly, a lot of the Arab leaders had served for the Sassanians and the Byzantines, and that it also spread through trade.

What current and pre-existing debates, alongside these, should I be bringing into my classroom on this topic, and are there some good articles on them?

On the show knight fight, and in many other clips I've seen from other similar leagues, weapons are rarely used the way they are shown in movies etc. Instead they will usually try to close the distance as fast as possible and use the weapon to shove/tackle their opponent to the ground. Because they are heavily armored, a strike from the weapon mainly stuns an opponent, but getting the opponent to the ground is usually what decides the fight. I get that the people who compete in these leagues are often mma fighters and such, and have limited experience using a weapon so may just prefer to rely on grappling/pummeling for that reason. But if effective weapon use could beat that it would seem someone would have figured it out and started dominating. But from all the competitions I've seen, it looks like ugly fighting (tackling/shoving/grappling) wins the day much more than actual weapon wielding. Reminds me a lot of traditional martial arts vs grappling in the early days of UFC/mma.

Did fights look closer to what we see in movies (those considered reasonably historically accurate), or more like the ugly brawls we see in armored combat leagues? If there was some kind of gentleman's agreement back in those days that kept knight combat from devolving into shoving matches you would think in actual combat someone would just disregard that and use what works best.

Also, obviously their swords are blunted etc but still. You have exactly one chance of tagging someone with say a war hammer before they have closed in on you and your weapon is useless.