I mean, if it was that much powerful, why it wasn't produced en masse and replaced steel? Even in countries that actually had access to it it wasn't common for their armies to depend on it, like the Byzantines, the Ottomans or the Mamluks, but there wasn't even really noted by a lot of people at their time. Heck, they didn't even applied it trough economic uses like building railroads (it would be really good material for early railroads) on the Industrial Revolution.

Also, another question: Would actually changed the balance of power or the warfare of it's time if it was used in really big numbers or it wouldn't change that much?

This greatly interests me because I have never really thought about it. I understand that RoTK is a romanticisation during the Ming dynasty of the Three Kingdoms era. But what made Lu Bu famous, and where did the iconic armour come from, also, how realistic is it, if not, what kind of armour would he have worn if there's an answer to that?

So I've heard that when the Normans took over England, they managed to make it the most centralized state in medieval Europe at the time. How and why did they do this? Was it simply because of the issue of a conquering population needing to rule over a separate subjugated ethnic group, or were there other reasons?

This was prompted by my recent viewing of 1917 (great film, by the way). Did men from colonial India or Africa fight and serve alongside men from the British Isles? Thank you.

(Of course, I am probably generalising and not 100% correct with my assumptions)

I've just seen the movie 1917 and it was really damn good. I think most of you would enjoy it. I know a lot about WWI, but I'm not an expert as some of you maybe.

Small Spoilers Ahead

The movie is about about a British soldier (a lance corporal) that is trying to deliver a very important message to the colonel of a unit from the general regarding to withdraw troops because the Germans intentionally withdrawn their troops during the Operation Alberich to lure the British towards them.

There were a few instances were I sort of rolled my eyes during the movie. The first time was when I saw a token Black British soldier in the trenches with pretty much all White British soldiers. I thought this was an intentional diversity placement. However, this happened a second time where a Sikh soldier was in a platoon of all White British soldiers and he was joking around with them and really looked like he bonded with his fellow battle buddies. What I was thinking during this time was "wait...If the British had Black or Sikh soldiers fighting with them, sure they would all be in their own Black or Sikh units, right ?"

So, were there Black and Sikh soldiers fighting for the British and were they all in their own units or did integrate with them ? With today's ultra politically correct climate, this seemed like an intentional "oh look how PC and diverse we are !" from the director/producer(s). And before you get offended, this has been happening in movies a lot recently and a lot of people, especially people who want historical accuracy in their films like myself, are getting irritated by this.

Anyway, what is the consensus on this ?

This seems like an obvious yes to me, but I've searched the internet and can't seem to find a solid verification that this actually happened? Can anyone point me in the right direction, perhaps to some trusted sources? Thanks in advance.

Obviously this is not absolute, but there appears to be a clear tendancy.

Compare Latin to modern french or spanish.

Compare Homeric Greek to Koine, let alone modern Greek.

Compare Classical Arabic to modern street-Arabic (lahjah/daarijah).

In all these cases the grammar of the older language is not simply more difficult, it is several orders of magnitude more complex than modern languages. All of them also feature a decrease or complete elimination of declensions.

I am guessing Sanskrit is definitely more difficult than Hindi.

Even in English, Shakespearean English is more grammatically complex and often non-intuitive to native English speakers (my high school experience.) I'm not including Old English which was clearly very complex grammatically because of the vast changes which occured post-Norman invasion.

Historians of reddit - what gives?

We get many questions here on warfare in Europe, mostly on male soldiers. So I was especially intrigued by this corps of thousands of women warriors that apparently served under the ruler of Dahomey (modern-day Benin) from roughly the 18th to the late 19th centuries. From what little I've read they were the only standing female battalion to serve in various battles at the time anywhere in the world.

My understanding is that the warriors were officially wives of the ruler; and underwent heavy military training. Yet I haven't seen much on how this tradition came to be nor on how accepted the warriors were in the society of Dahomey. As a follow up, this made me wonder about other similar cases in the region. (The "Amazons" in the title takes up a contemporary European quote on the corps.)

I mean, crimes against humanity didnt exist before 1945. How did they charge them for crimes that were legalized by the Nazi State? The Nazi State never agreed to subject themselves via treaty to these laws. How did the Allies find jurisdiction?

We’re often under the impression that ancient civilizations allegedly believed the “myths” in earnest and faithfully treated the stories as religious dogma. Yet how do we really know for sure?

In the past century we’ve seen a trend of epic story telling, starting with the Lord of the Rings and growing into Star Wars, Star Trek, Narnia, Doctor Who, Marvel, Warhammer, A Song of Ice and Fire, and so much more. We clearly understand these as fiction, yet what will future scholars think?

For some it might be easy to say that religious believes have tradition and culture that exists outside the mythos. To that I suggest attending a convention for one of the aforementioned works.

So how do we know the Greeks and Romand didn’t just see their Gods as fictional stories that help guide their morals? How do we know the legends of Thor, Odin, and Valhalla wasn’t just to entertain people as they drank?

Where is the line drawn between the Illiad and the Oddessy, which to my understanding were always considered works of fiction, and the rest of the Greco Roman pantheon of religious tales?

I'm reading a lot of primary sources from 18th and 19th century Europe for a class, and it seems like people were drinking just constantly. I know this is a bit qualitative, and I don't have any hard data to back it up, but why wasn't everyone permanently hammered all the time? Were they? What am I missing here?

Edit: if your response relies on the fact that people in the past drank alcohol because the water was generally unsafe to drink, you should know that this "fact" is actually a well-known myth, and your answer will likely be removed before I, or anyone else, can read it. Please help the mods out and just leave it to the historians.

This thought came to me the other day, mainly due to the fact that the story sold to most people is that medieval Europe was a literacy wasteland. If almost nobody could ready, how did the bible translation help revolutionize society?

I'm assuming that the upper crust of society was already learned in Latin, so I don't so how translating the bible to English/German etc....would help them? And the upper crusts "serfs" almost certainly could not read so, someone, please, break it down for me. Why is this given so much importance?

Could a single pilot get leave at a time? If so, was his position in the squadron filled by someone else for the time he was on leave or did the formation change to accomodate?

Historically , have any countries ever been invaded by another state if it was known that they possess nuclear weapons ?