I just recently watched the king on Netflix. There was the scene where the battle of agincourt happened where everyone was in mud. In reality, how would soldiers identify enemies with all of the chaos? How was it not wanton friendly kills?

What was the rationale for risking a costly and dangerous amphibious landing at Normandy, rather than sweeping into France and Germany from the south, through Italy?

Hello, first time posting here so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to post this question.

I was looking around trying to look for textbooks on Korean history. The main topics being: Hanbok (traditional clothing), Hanok (architecture) and any other in depth sources. Alas, I've come to find that there really are no good books that clearly show examples with the distinct time periods and trends.

I'll be using these sources because I'm working on a series and id like to be historically accurate. Any good recommendations would be greatly appreciated!!

(anything showing diagrams, pictures and/or examples from each time period would be great!)

I'm watching The Knight before Christmas netflix and this 14th century knight knew what yeast was and I wasnt sure if they used yeast back then in their baking.

I’ve just read the war below, a book on ww2 submariners, some of whom were considered KIA but were acutaully imprisoned off the records by the Japanese. Aside from emotional complications resulting from their reappearance, sone practical difficulties mustve arisen when they were rescued.

[deleted]

How close can we get to the real number? How reliable is the information from holocaust survivors? And what was the population of these minorities in the countries occupied by Nazi Germany and their allies before,during and after the war?

How did they evolve from being the 'rebel' icon in the 70s to the no-brainer go-to piece of casual clothing they are today?

It doesn't seem to been used in early tabletop gaming naming conventions (for instance, in Dungeons & Dragons and directly inspired games) but was already seemingly omnipresent in the 1990's fantasy games, especially video games.

What made "mana" such a standardized name for a gameplay concept, virtually identical to "magic", rather than other terms associated with spiritual power (such qi or ojas) critically in a "lay" form (as XVIIIth century "magnetism") rather than associated with religious belief ?

The four noblemen in the Imperial delegation that sparked the 3rd defenestration of Prague which in turn sparked the Thirty Years War were sent to Prague as regents on behalf of the Emperor. After the Battle of White Mountain when Bohemia was conquered by Imperial forces, who was or were the regents or governors or Burgraves (if I’m not mistaken, that’s the official title) under Ferdinand II, who as I understand it, was governing out of Vienna?

The Minoans practiced Thalassocracy on the Mediterranean Sea,transporting goods from landing points all over the Mediterranean Area..What were the trade routes they were following?Definitely Egypt Lebanon and Cyprus...Where were the main port centres located?the city of Troy was an important landing point on the route to reach the Black Sea through the Dardanelli

I was just watching a video and they explained how US navy learned the importance of Aircraft Carriers from Pearl Harbor and later Midway.

This sounds very intuitive, until you realize that the US had - between Feb 1940 and Sep 1940 - put in orders for 11 Essex Class carriers with an aircraft capacity of as much as 1,100 planes. In the same time window only 5 Iowa class battleships were ordered.

To contrast, the Japanese Navy had 414 planes at Pearl Harbor, 248 at Midway etc.

It somehow feels like the US navy had a pretty good idea about the primacy of the aircraft carrier by September 1940, during which a particularly large order was split 3 battleships vs 8 carriers.

So my question is: what caused this clear focus on aircraft carriers so clearly before Pearl Harbor?

My question is concerned with the first sentences. "some of the most radical criticism coming out of the west today is the result of an interesting desire to conserves the subject of the West, or the West as a subject".

What does this mean? I understand that her critiques of Foucault and Deleuze revolve around the french post-structuralist idea of the subject and of Subjectivity, but this first sentence does not make sense to me.