Acceleration, performance at various altitudes, durability, roll rates etc... more specific than basic top speed, range, etc...

A lot of what I have read on this topic indicates that the rebellion was one against the Manchu-led Qing dynasty, and many of those killed by the rebellion were Manchu, but I don't see much description of this war as being one of primarily a race war. Why not?

It seems that if I were in California long after the gold rush ended there in 1855, and found out about a similar gold rush in Australia beginning around 1890, I might be inclined to pack up and head to western Australia to seek my fortune, especially if I missed out on the first one. Did any Americans do this?

FYI I'm not actually a peasant from 1000AD England, it was just a way of framing the question.

Curious to know where I could go if I wanted to hear the poem being recited. Now assume I can read, can I go and get my hands on a copy? How much would it cost?

Or are literary works completely outside the culture of a typical peasant?

So it seems that the armour and arms race went from bronze cuirasses from the hoplite period to iron ones but then in the medieval period we have this surgence of chainmail before going back to plate type armor why?
I mean like shoulder and joints I understand why chain may be better, but it seems weird to use chainmail for body armor.

For starters I don't know much about early firearm warfare or how much was conducted aside from the basic premise of one musket line fires while the other reloads etc, so forgive me for a dumb question cuz the answer isnt obvious to me. So for instance you have one army lets say British all full of musket soldiers etc. All of which who have shitty one shot muskets and maybe a bayonet attached. So what stopped the opposing army from simply arming all their men with swords and attempting to rush or ambush the enemy betwern volleys. Once youre upclose the musket soldiers with only a bayonet to defend themselves suddenly become much more vulnerable after breaking rank and have to fight one on one, if anything wouldn't this lead to an easier route as the musket soldiers arent used to or trained for such fighting. So was this ever done aside from the brittish fighting some african or native tribe with no firearms? And if not why not? I'm not very Knowledgeable of this time period as most of my history knowledge is of late antiquity and so on.

Why were formations not able to adjust to being attacked from all sides? According to my simple logic, the amount of people actively fighting on each front line would still be approximately the same, so while not having a retreat-route sucks, casualties should be about the same as when both armies clash in a straight line, shouldn't they?

If anything, wouldn't the encircling army have problems with refilling the front rank when fresh soldiers were spread thin over a long line vs a compact circle?

So I know the Japanese never really had an organized plan as for the ultimate fate of conquered China. they didn't think much about what they would do after they won. However, the invasion of the European Colonial holdings in SE Asia was much better organized and planned, with strategic goals in mind. I have heard poorly-supported theories elsewhere that the Marco Polo Bridge incident was deliberately created by either Hideki Tojo or field officers near Peking for no other reason than to act tough and win glory, and the Emperor Hirohito really didn't want war with China, ever. After the Incident, however, his hand was forced. This supposedly created a very poorly planned, unwinnable war with no long-term thinking involved. Is there any truth to this theory?

Pretty much the title. Him and Eva Braun knew each other for pretty much 16 years but didn't get married until they knew they would kill themselves the next day (and Hitler was 56 at the time). Geobells, Göring, Himmler, Heidrich, Hess, Bormann, etc. were all high ranking Nazis who got married. Why was Hitler so different in that regard?

(from the story of Esther)

Is there historical proof that this ruler lived? He had issued a command to kill all the Jews in his kingdom. It was later rescinded. I'd like to know if this story is just a traditional tale or if any archaeological proof exists that this happened?

Hi, I'm a History student from Argentina and I always had the doubt about the accuracy of Robert Graves in his Greek Myths. I wanted to know if he quotes his sources somewhere since my edition of the myths doesn't have any mention to Historic or Anthropologic works, neither of primary sources such as Theogony, Odyssey, etc. Thanks and sorry for the bad English

The Seljuk Empire had its roots in the sparsely populated Central Asia. Still they were able to dominate the far more wealthy Persians, Arabians and Byzantines. How was this achieved?

"[direct] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

I remember hearing that there was a fire in Prague, in a theater or something, (can vaguely remember) at around 16th century, that gave start to ideas about firefighting and further on to emergency services. Can someone enlighten me on this? Thanks

I know that the idea of the French Revolution was to end the tyranny of the aristocracy and monarchy, but did your average individual support the cause/actively participate in revolutionary events?

Hello All

I am doing a research paper on these two inquisitors and I was wondering if anyone knew anywhere where I could find English translations of any of their works. I was hoping to find primary sources from these two individuals as I know that they both wrote rather prolifically. I will be cross posting this to /medievalhistory and /history just in case.

The question of my paper is "Was the use of the Inquisition in Medieval Spain a political as well as religious action?"

​

TIA

I’ve read that previously in the mid 20th century political parties were much less ideologically based than they are now, so what differentiated the parties and what would drive a person to join one or the other?

So the Eurasian Steppe tribes had a long historical record of raiding the settled societies, trading with them and conquering them (mongols most notably). They were a dominant military force for thousands of years and left a huge mark on the settled societies that bordered them.

Did the tribes that inhabited the grasslands of middle America do the same for the settled native tribes near them? I don’t know much about native tribes but the Sioux and Apache were both on the American grasslands that were similar to the Steppe. How did they interact with settled tribes like the Iroquois or Cherokee.

Did the horse make a difference on the Steppe that wasn’t present on the American prairie? Did the Cherokee and other settled tribes view the Sioux and Apache the same Hungarians or Chinese viewed the Cumans, Huns and mongols?

Any information on this would be really appreciated!

Hi all -

I've been trying to find good book recommendations centered around World War II. I'm particularly curious about daily lives of the folks at home - what were women doing during World War II? What about kids? (Were they really sent away to the country during that time to protect them from attacks?) How did daily lifestyles differ from country to country (U.S. to Europe?)

I'm open to any book recommendations about World War II, but I'm having the hardest time finding stuff about this in particular. Thanks in advance.