I‘ve been watching a lot of these “reforged” videos on YouTube lately and it got me thinking, in every piece of entertainment set in medieval/greek/roman times I can recall people run around with flawless swords and spears.

Back in the videos, nearly every weapon they make they use modern tools like power hammers and belt grinders and tack welders. Every angle is grinded out to perfection, there are no dents in the material and everything is perfectly straight and fits down to the milimeter.

To what extend could smiths from hundreds or thousands of years ago produce such an end result?

Also i am aware that with enough time and money paid these people were capable of pretty astonishing weapons, but I’m talking about the average foot soldier’s or lowly knight’s weapons.

More specifically the temple of Artemis? I read the Ephesians viewed Artemis differently to the rest of the world, how did she differ and how did the offerings/requests differ?

How would the temple operate, staff, visitors? Pretty much just looking for a run down of how the temple played its role in ancient Ephesus?
Thanks.

What caused India to have a much less developed economy than other British Dominions in the early 20th century? Politically it seems to have shared a similar position, but it was on a much less effective footing when it gained independence than Canada and Australia, for example.

Obviously there are a lot of differences. “Indigenous” peoples forms a majority in India and were almost annihilated in Canada and Australia.

Especially given the experience of WWI, it would make tactical sense from a British perspective to broaden the “skilled labor” base that could go into a future war effort by bringing up the economy of the dominions. Why wasn’t this attempted (or it it was attempts outside my knowledge, why didn’t it succeed)?

I’m currently reading Churchill’s history of WWII and it seems like India wasn’t the profound source of power for the British that it seems like it should be, given its manpower, size, and resources.

Hey Im watching world war 2 in color again for the 100th time and Im curious where I might be able to access some of the footage they used, Just for personal education, nothing commercial.

I know that during WW2 National Service applied to all UK citizens over the age of 18, When people were called up to join, what determined their service branch?

Were they just told you will be a sailor/soldier/airman or were there tests and stuff based on the individual?

In the novel "Master and Commander", the crew of the HMS Sophie is motivated almost entirely by the profit to be made by selling off captured prizes. Is this an accurate depiction of Royal Navy practices in the Napoleonic era? Was this practice shared by other navies? Why was profiting from plunder not practiced by other branches (an army officer complains that he can't get rich the same way). When and how was this practice phased out?

Asking for a game that I am making.

Basically, what was the role of scientists, and how new technologies were found?

It seems to me, someone who understands only 10% of this complicated war, that "the world" was just as much involved in the 7 year war and got changed just ad heavily, as the other two global wars. And just like WW1 and WW2, we got two sides fighting each other, with Europe being in the spotlight.

Can someone who is smarter than me please explain to me why the great war earned this title but not this war?

Edit: Going through wikipedia, it seems it's called Seven Year's War, so sorry if it wasn't clear what I meant. I mean the European conflict from 1756 to 1763.

Hi, I'm a college student who's tasked with writing an argumentative essay on a topic of my choosing. I was thinking of arguing that nonviolent forms of colonial resistance aren't as effective as violent forms. Of course, I am no historian, and that's why I wanted to ask this sub for advice. From my perspective, it just seems like the British wouldn't be very moved to liberate the crown jewel of their empire just because of nonviolent resistance alone. I am Bengali-American myself, so this topic hits pretty close to home for me, but I am severely lacking in historical knowledge. Thank you for any input.

From what I’ve gathered, the Spanish had a larger presence in the Americas, they controlled more of it and were also there over 100 years before the British.

However..

62% of Americans have British ancestry and 8 of the top 10 most popular surnames in America have British origin.

I know triremes were the preferred naval vessel, but from what I've read there would be little room for cargo aboard such a ship, meaning not enough food or water for the crew on such a journey. Did these ancients possess any other type of a ship that would have been able to make such a trip? I know these civilizations would have no knowledge of Atlantic trade winds, but it seems like a vessel powered by rowers would be the perfect tool to cross at the "horse latitudes" where there is very little wind. Was there any ship that could hypothetically complete this journey, and if so what was it called?

Hitler killed himself before anybody could capture him (maybe a good choice considering what happened to Mussolini). But were there any plans for what his captors would want to do with him, had they managed to capture him? Would he be tried at nuremberg like the others or was there any "special treatment" planned? In what ways do the western allies' and the soviets' plans differ?

So, reading something I found out that armies of middle ages were not in fact made out of peasants raised for campaign, but from individuals that could he called professional soldiers. My question is how did medieval armies work? Is only difference between medieval professional army and standing early modern army in organization in peace time? If I understand correctly in Early Modern Europe standing army was always of paylist of monarch, 12 months a year, serving to him, and in Medieval time those professionals were "recruited" only for campaigns and were on pay-list of monarch during war but in peace time did other things (plunder, bandits, or even mercenaries for other rulers)?

Generally, how did army in High and Late Middle Ages work, since my conception about peasant militia is obviously wrong.

Would it be Re used multiple time or was a new one casted for each person who was to be executed? Wouldn’t it also leave a charred corpse, so would the corpses have to be scraped out?

The Pope send children in boats because their innocence was the only way to beat the saracens but they were instead captured by slavers,how accurate is this description?

So I’ve been reading about the German and Japanese war crimes that involved medical experimentation performed on humans, but i can’t seem to find what the results of all these experiments were and if they actually benefited science at the time? although I’m assuming anything of value was most likely just stolen by the US/Soviets to claim it as their own “discoveries” soon after the war.

Also what about allied medical war crimes? Are there any that we know happened on the allied side, as I’m sure you’re all not naive enough to think we’re above such things.

It could be phrased a little better, but I can’t grasp what they thought was going to happen if Nazi Germany was to win the war.

I've been reading a bit of Graves' White Goddess and Greek Myths lately. I've long known that Graves' theories about the goddess and the origin of Greek and other European myth are not well regarded, especially given his lack of expertise in the related fields, but I'm interested in the topic nonetheless. What are better and more up to date sources regarding the origin and development of European myth? Are there any specific books or authors I should be looking at? My interest is mostly in Greek/Roman, British Isles, and Nordic mythology.

Modern portrayals of ancient Rome tend to show wealthy romans freely using their slaves sexually. Was this actually common and socially acceptable? If so, are there recorded instances of slaves giving birth to their owner's children? Would these children be acknowledged and raised as citizens or would they retain their mother's status as a slave, like in early America?

I've been considering writing a book about the cultural, political, and economic history of the pacific northwest. The topic intrigues me and I enjoy writing, but the idea of researching it always scares me off a bit.

It's not that I'm scared of doing research, per se, just that most history books I read have a plethora of primary and secondary sources, and I don't know how to locate what sources I would need, or how to efficiently research something.

So, how do you start researching for books you've written? Do you just sort of look around for anything that relates to your topic of study, or is there a method you use to find reliable and useful information?