I just can't comprehend for the life of me how a superior naval force falls victim to a storm THREE times in a row. Was it just plain stupidity of the Spanish king and his admirals? Were the late fifteen hundreds just really storm-prone? Or was it just dumb luck?

Also, if the storms did not befall the Spanish armada is it believed that they would have been able to challenge the English Navy at sea? Is it possible if not for these three storms the Spanish may have ruled the seas?

I know that infantry was very important during the periods between 500-1400 ce, but cavalry was much more important. New infantry techniques like the Swiss battle square, phalanx, the Persians tactical system... etc made it extremely difficult to defend against well organized armies but what exactly (if anything) made the use of cavalry so dominant. Innovation of new armor, better weapons, and the emergence of the longbow all helped the emergence of infantry, but what was it about cavalry that made it such a force to be reckoned with during these times?

On a side note when were the Anglo-Saxons converted?

When armies went to war, who did the women's work? Did women come to do the cooking and laundering, did men do it themselves, did they just take over towns on the way and use the services there?

I ask because I've heard prostitutes would follow behind armies for work, though I don't know if that's true either.

The film "Enemy at the Gates" portrays a freshly minted unit of the Red Army being issued their weapons before being tossed into combat at Stalingrad. Each soldier is issued either a rifle or a small number of bullets, and the unarmed one is supposed to "assist" the one with the rifle and pick up the rifle if the rifleman is killed.Keegan's history of the First World War cites stories of similar events taking place in the Czar's army (calling them "nothing less than the truth"), which lines up with my conception of the extremely poor state of logistics and military industry in Russia until sometime in 1915, but I've never heard an academic source describe the Red Army of WWII doing the same thing. Is it known whether this happened in Stalin's armies, and if so, whether it was any sort of routine or regular thing or just an occasional expedient?

I was recently listening to someone who said that before the 20th century, it was far more common for people to be able to generate their own entertainment.

On one hand, the examples are obvious. Kids once made up their own games and play without needing fancy toys, their parent's Ipad, or an Xbox.

But as a historian, do you see premodern people as being able to "create culture," and "entertainment," better than the average person does today?

For instance, were creative oral story-telling skills far more common than its been in modern history (where story creation seems relegated to those who write books and movie scripts)?

Were more people able to play an instrument?

Would the literate be writing their own poetry or short stories to share with their families?

I'll take any premodern time period you may have access to, but I'd like to know about as wide a swath of the populace as I can get.

Ghengis khan had rapidly expanded the mongol zone of influence during his conquests while keeping his army intact and his new lands subjugated and under his control. However, I am curious how Ghengis khan had organized and planned the logistics of his far reaching invasions and how he administrated his new holdings. The vast swaths of land he controlled were often populated and keeping control over non core territories during the Middle Ages was a difficult thing to do. So I guess my question is how did Ghengis khan and his later predecessor, ogedei, hold onto their empire and plan the logistics of their invasions?

I've been looking more into the Civil Rights era within US history and it always struck me as odd that there seems little if any mention of Blacks being opposed to racial integration of schools and businesses. Was the opposition by Black communities just virtually nonexistent? If it did exist in a significant amount, why were they opposed to integration?

Why didn't Queen Elizabeth or Queen Victoria promote more gender equality? And if yes, how much so? Did nobody end up concluding that since a woman was good enough to be their Queen then women were maybe not the "lesser" sex? How did people deal with the juxtaposition of having a woman as their leader while believing that their daughters/wives were "beneath" them/less smart?

There’s no major connection between the Wild West and Italians that I can think of, and the major Italian film genre that preceded it, neorealism, was quite somber and serious. Seems random.

My name is Zoe and I have been researching the origins of my name, considering a possible tattoo. I want to ensure that I fully understand this. The primary difference I've noticed between pictures of the Phos Zoe Cross is that the Omega symbol can be represented as a W looking shape or as a horseshoe shape. Please help me understand why this is and which is the most accurate or grammatically correct. Proper pronunciation might help too.

I was reading Mary Beard's SPQR and she claimed on page 71:

The name 'Romulus' is itself a give-away. Although Romans usually assumed that he had lent his name to his newly established city, we are now fairly confident that the opposite was the case: 'Romulus' was an imaginative construction out of 'Roma'. 'Romulus' was merely the archetypal 'Mr Rome'.

This isn't the first time I've seen the claim that not only the figure of Romulus but his name are later constructions. How do we know this is the case?

To be clear, I understand the reasons to be skeptical of the existence of Romulus or of any level of historicity regarding Rome's founding myth. What I'm specifically asking about is how we know that the name 'Romulus' isn't a proper Latin name, which seems like a much more specific claim - I mean, Remus didn't exist either, but I've never seen the claim that 'Remus' isn't a name at all.

I understand that this is largely an Americanism, like how "Canadian bacon" is just an American term for "back bacon" and doesn't have anything to do with Canada per se, but I've heard that part of the reason for the distinction was Canadian whiskeys having more rye in the mash than contemporary American whiskeys - was this due to historical tastes or geographic factors, or just a marketing gimmick, or what?

We talk a lot about the trench in the German/French fronts in WW1. However I have never heard of trench in another place during the war. Were they a specificity of the French/German armies?

Does anyone know of any academic blogs in the realm of early modern history? Particularly relating to witchcraft in Britain and Europe?

Since we're on the topic of great reformers, his social and infrastructural reforms, as well as their immediate effects, are extremely famous. I want to know what their long-term consequences were, specifically when it comes to economic growth.

I know that there were laws giving indigenous peoples the same rights as whites and criollos, but what was the effective situation? Did indigenous peoples have those rights in practice, or they only had them "on paper"? What was the relation between blacks, criollos, mestizos, whites and "indios"?

Pretty much as stated above, has anyone seriously claimed this and gained some backing?

Edit: by saying, "why haven't I learned about this?" I should have said, "why wasn't a new religion formed around that belief"

The period 800-1100 roughly was relatively short for Vikings to be well doing Vikingy things I am curious as to why the era came to an end and anything that might have happened to cause such. I do understand that our info is limited due to sources being after said time frame, and the accuracy of the likes of the Vinland sagas is partially confirmed in places at best, either way though any insight would be helpful.

I just finished The Lost City Of Z (I know this isn't a history book), but it discusses how there were many great cities in the amazon that now are difficult to find traces of. My understanding was that the spread of disease had decimated cities quickly. But how did they become decimated so quickly that A) The traces were hard to spot by later explorers and B) the future generations didn't recall them.

Hitler always seems to be the central figure of blame for Operation Barbarossa, but then again Wehrmacht leaders are also known to glorify themselves after the war (Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht). I was just wondering how much blame they should get for the decision to invade the USSR in the first place, or if the idea was purely Hitler's baby.

I've been researching Old West brothels for almost a year to write a novel. I can't find an answer to this, except for the Chinese women forced to work in California or "crib girls".

Because women in most modern first-world brothels go home to their own beds when their shifts are over, I assumed that was true for brothels in the Old West. But some sources have led me to believe that the working women essentially lived in their places of business.

However, I can't find anything about their lives in the brothel while they weren't working. Did they have a space of their own, or a place to sleep/ rest outside of the places they invited customers? If they had their own bed, was this the same bed they worked, or did they women just use whatever bed was available?

Additional questions, if anyone knows: Where did they eat? When did they do their hair and makeup? Did they do their own laundry, or have it sent out?

I understand that there were many different types of prostitutes in the Old West, and "crib girls" "camp girls" almost always had a designated cot or tent respectively. But I'm mainly interested in brothel and parlor workers, specifically in Denver, circ. 1895-1905. Of course, I'm happy for any information that doesn't exactly match that strict criteria!

Thanks for any advice, or any reading material you can recommend.

My question is a bit broad, but I would like to know the relationship between darker-skinned people and the Arab world. Why racism and colorism are so prevalent within Arab society.

Is the a by-product of colonialist standards of beauty? Does colorism/racism go back to the Arab slave trade?