I’m watching The King and there is a scene of the Battle of Agincourt where both the French and English are wearing armor. With the mud and noise and confusion how did the fighters who which men around them to fight?

The Fall of France had many causes and impacts and was arguably one of the most important events of the war. Given this, why are they simply mentioned once?

I am currently studying at North Carolina Agricultural and technical State University. Research has never been a strong suit of mine, but I digress. I need to write a paper on mechanical or Agricultural innovation made by A&T students, staff, or alumni, between 1892 and 1970. When I spoke with library and special collections staff they said that there would be a plethora of material for me write about. I have had an extremely hard time finding information regarding this topic.

Currently I've tried searching relevant words in their library's digital collections. As well as looking for other theses and dissertations on similar topics. I have found none. Any tips on how I can improve my research?

I've been reading through the Wikipedia articles on these three battles and each seems to suggest that the French knights were so preoccupied with their perceptions of chivalric honour that they paid little heed to the situation at hand. It seems strange that this attitude continued to dominate French tactics and strategy when it repeatedly proved so disastrous. At Nicopolis the French commanders seemed mainly concerned with who would lead the vanguard as opposed to any tactical consideration. As an English speaker I imagine that it is possible that there are a whole host of French victories where this kind of chivalric enthusiasm carried the day, but I am not aware of them. I know the French eventually won the hundred years war, but my understanding of this relates to Joan of Arc and some sort of revitalization of popular support. Conversely, in the build up to Agincourt the French army had the opportunity to attack the English force on a number of occasions but deferred and waited for their host to grow in size. If their arrogance was so great why did they hesitate to give battle before Agincourt? Thank you

Edit: My best guess is that this jockeying for the vanguard was some sort of internal French cultural or societal mechanic. For a French knight or Noble was this sort of consideration, to be the first into battle, essential to maintaining their power at home and in court? Even if this is along the right lines, it seems like victory would need to be given some level of near equal consideration.

From what I've heard, the Entente increasingly started to equip their ships with false flags of neutral nations, so as to not get attacked by German U-Boats. The Germans however quickly catched up on this and thus started unrestricted submarine warfare, as they couldn't be sure anymore to which nation a particular ship really belonged to. Of course there are other variables in play like it being dangerous to surface and inspect the ship, but this is what I heard was the main reason. Is this view correct and the unrestricted submarine warfare justified?

Furthermore, the sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania caused a pause in unrestricted submarine warfare. However, that ship as it turned out had munitions loaded. But, the Germans couldn't know that before torpedoing it, could they? So they torpedoed it with the known danger that this could just be any passenger liner, without any war material loaded. Or am i wrong on this? But apart from this, was the sinking justified in the end?

And last but not least: What about unrestricted submarine warfare in WW2?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know at least until second and third centuries the Romans would have used the founding of Rome as their start date. I presume most other civilizations had start dates like this, or a Ruler relative system e.g. "We are in 2nd year of A's rule, and before that we were ruled by B for 15 years. Thus 'year 2' means multiple years."

So when did and how did the use of "A.d." and "B.c." start to spread?

So obviously there were quick divergences, with British ones becoming Christian sooner, then also a bit of isolation from each other, but the separation isn't that long. I am specifically interested what did Saxons of Britain think of Saxons in Germany before Charlemagne conquered them? Can you recommend any books that deal with the issue?

What’s with the globe hopping? Why wouldn’t he be tried in Europe? Or his place of capture?

I am hanging trouble finding literature discussing the status of freed northern (or born free) American American land holdings - either in cities or in rural communities prior to the civil war.

What if any legal protections were there?

Are there any statistics comparing proportion of land ownership and approximate value compared to other racial and ethnic groups?

Schools of thought from social theorists of the times in relation to this?

Thank you kindly.

V/r