The Romans are generally seen as having top of the line equipment during their entire existence. At what point did the equipment used by soldier surpass those used by the Legionaries? I assume it would have happened sometime during the middle ages.

Since the United Kingdom did not implement universal male suffrage until 1918, by the same act in which (some) women got the vote, that means some men were still lacking the franchise when the women's suffrage movement was gaining momentum. Did this fact play into the debate and if so how? Was it used as an argument against suffrage? Did the women's suffrage movement try to find common cause with those advocating for universal male suffrage?

I'm writing a story right now and whilst the setting is actually a fantasy one it's very heavily based on medieval europe. I'm wondering specifically about the possibility of breaking out of a medieval cell. To give some context, during my story a character is imprisoned and tortured in the king's cells and is broken out by a group of rebels (said group are a pretty organised and influential unit who are a threat to the crown rather than a disorganised band of rebels). I was wondering really how easy this would be with a medieval cell let alone guards. I'm not too sure on what medieval cells would have been like.

The goals of the wars were not same but it feels like they are two parts of the same war. Hitler had his own goals but the reason why he was supported by germans was that germans were hyped for revenge after World War I. The connection between those two wars are so strong and deep I can`t ignore it.

Hundred Years War was actually series of wars with peace times that occured at the medieval age but it is named so as if it was one big war that went for 100 years non-stop.

Same thing goes for the Cold War.

Can we claim the same thing or at least something similar for the World Wars ?

I know ancient China had been invaded and conquered multiple times by foreign nomadic groups coming from northeast Asia. Chinese civilization survived by eventually assimilating its conquerors over time. My question is about this process of assimilation and sinicization. When China was conquered, did the foreigners adopt Han customs/language because they really thought they were superior to their own or did they adopt them because they knew it was the only way they could control the vast empire with their smaller numbers compared to the total Han population. Were there other reasons they were sinicized?

It was rumored at the time and since that Henry the Second bedded his ward, and his son’s betrothed, Alys of France and May have even had a child with her. Is there any evidence for or against this rumor.

The consistently great powers from about the 17th to early 20th century Europe were always in my mind Great Britain, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, the Ottomans and Austria.

The thing is, I feel like all these powers did something exceptional (at least at some point), e.g. Great Britain creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen, France with the Revolutionary wars + Napoleon and so on), except for Austria (and maybe Russia?).

Austria is always mentioned as one of the great powers of Europe but I am kind of wondering what got them in the same league. When I hear about the Austrian empire, it's usually something about how they had economic troubles, their bureaucracy was failing or the tensions between the different peoples of the empire.

Either way, seeing as Austria was apparently in the same league as, say, France and Prussia, I was kind of wondering if someone could maybe reorient my perspective of the empire, or give some information on a time period where Austria was doing well for itself.

Thank you.

Like, you had no choice, so if you had a family that was just making it by, what happened to them when you were not making enough money to pay their rent?

Did the British hire criminals during the days of the empire? I know that they apparently essentially kidnapped drunks for use in the Royal Navy at one point but were criminals ever a real asset to the British Empire and its military?

I'm doing an assignment for the katyn massacre and was wondering if anyone could tell me about it or any good reliable sources, thanks in advance

That is to say, was the economy and culture of gambling in such a place that there would be enough tables and enough money being exchanged that one person could make a living wage just by traveling and playing games of skill/luck? More specifically in the latter end of the period, like the 1850s up to the beginning of the war.

Additionally, playing with particularly rich people would probably simplify this, but would it still be possible with only normal people/common folk?

I'm currently reading the latest book of à French socialist MP and journalist, ("Il est où, le bonheur"), François Ruffin.

In a conversation about the triggers of solidarity in dire times, Ruffin claims that the WW2 rationing system helped tremendously the nutritional situation of the British society as a whole, that the purchasing power actually increased for the working class, and that criminality decreased.

I read a bit on it on Wikipédia, but it was mostly focused on the nutritional improvements, and I'd like to know more about this topic

Thanks !