I suppose taller and heavier men were better at fighting with swords, axes and probably even bows. They could have used a heavier armor and a larger shield.

When the men of a tribe/people were, on average, significantly taller and muscular than their enemies did this play a role in battles outcome or was it negligible relatively to other factors?

I'm doing some deep, DEEP research in DnD, and need specific weight ranges, in Lbs, to various parts of armor. Materials standard i am holding myself to is Cowhide, Steel, Oak, and limestone for stone if it applies. I will take any help, but these materials are my baseline. Above all, i need help finding further reading to weights, all this extra details is fluff that doesn't pertain to the question, but i still need to consider.

​

Any further reading would be greatly appreciated. Followng are the types of armor i would like help with. Near the top it is standard, near the bottom are unorthodox materials for magical armor composites.

Leather

Studded

Scaled

Gambeson

Fur

Hide

Splint

Chainmail

Scale

Lamellar

Wood/Haida (Not common at all, specifically Oak)

Partial Plate (Think standard Steel or Iron armor in Skyrim, lack of real joints)

Full Plate (Piece by piece weight please)

​

These are the materials that can be molded into armor, but have no historical evidence whatsoever to functionally exist IRL, if you want to help me get some functional weights, that would be nice, but i am mostly interested in the ones above. They are here cause, why not ask. Optional side question.

Limestone

Blue Ice (hardest ice in the world)

Ceramic

Glass/Crystal

Clay/Brick

I know that arabic is sometimes spoken so why is it that they and the Ottoman Empire didn't use their own native alphabet (whatever that may look like)

As a Dane, I’ve grown up being told that the danish were the real Vikings, and that we ruled over the rest of Scandinavia (both in government and in strength) but talking to both Swedes and Nords, they also claim that they were the true Vikings. What is the truth of this?

For example, were there any interactions between Nixon's campaign of 1968 and the North Vietnamese, or the Reagan's campaign of 1980 and the Iranian revolutionaries holding Americans hostage? Or perhaps other examples?

For example, what is the immidiate effect for a peasant in Thessaloniki or a frontier general in Anatolia.

So, I've taken interest in the movement known as the Nahda, and would like some references and books tackting the subjects, and developping their ideas and doctrines or presenting the leaders and thinkers of this movement.

In sociology I keep reading about how ideas of government has changed, and how in the old days people really believed that God appointed kings. But was this just an excuse kings and lords used when coming down on uppity peasants or did people really look at highborn people as separate and favored by God?

Was killing a king really seen as some kind of unholy act?

Roman and Medieval cookbooks tend to be quite lax in measurements of their recipes, and generally only providing the methods to make something. Which is a far cry from the exact measurements of today’s cookbooks. What exactly started this propensity to have measurements in recipes?

An issue that's been bothering me for quite some time is that of the seemingly myopic view of the world of a lot of people I meet working in fields such as science and engineering.

It "seems" to me, and I want to accentuate the word "seems" here, that a lot of scientists/engineers in the past were much more broad reaching in the scope of what they focused on.

The most modern example being people like Feynman or Von Neumann, which seemed to have made significant advancements in field ranging from set theory, to linear algebra, measure theory, n-dimensional geometry , to philosophy, computer science, to biology, particle physics, classical mechanics, organic chemistry, material engineering, meteorology (just to name some of the field upon which Neumann had influence).

Obviously these people are outliers, and to some extent it might be that their image got inflated after their death.

So what I'm curios is:

• Is there any evidence to suggest that "average" "scientists" in the 17th to early 20th century had a more broader understanding of all domains than "average" scientists today ?
• If there is, what is this evidence and when does this trend give way to over-specialization ?
• If there isn't, do you think that this is a common myth or just a wrong-impression which very few people hold ? Do you attribute it to a scientific equivalent of the "great man" thinking historians have of politics & war ? Is there an equivalent to the "Gun, germs and steel" viewpoint arguing against this view ?

Seems like an asshole move by the Nizam. The prime minister had to eventually offer to sell it to him for a fraction of the price. I can't find any more info but I'm sure there has to be more juicy behind the scene going ons about how the whole situation played out.

[deleted]

I know the main catalyst for his conquests to the west we're due to his anger towards the Khwarazmian Shah and to the east due to his feud against China. But why did he send his generals so far west into Europe when looking at a map of their expanding empire, southern India looked like a much more logical target?

As the title says - When you watch American television shows from the 40s, 50s, even 60s, everybody had a certain accent that you don't hear today ever. It's particularly obvious when you watch clips of old news programs. But nobody talks like this today. When did this change and how?

After Western Rome fell, did they flee to the eastern empire if possible, assimilate into the gothic/saxon/frankish people, or something else?

I'm trying to find authentic, academic sheet music of the Seikilos Epitaph and the Hurrian Hymn, No. 6. I don't want actual pictures of these artifacts, but interpretations of these pieces of music, translated into sheet music so someone could actually play it on an instrument. I figured this would be a good subreddit to ask being how historians archive documents and artifacts, maybe somebody could point me to an authoritative online database, maybe? I hope I'm not being too broad. I would appreciate any help.

Ancient Greek mythology stands out among other mythologies because they made their God in their own image. Christianity stands out among other religions because they believe that their God became a human through a virgin birth. When the Greek pagans were being evangelized to by the early Christians, would the idea of the Christian incarnation be outlandish to them?

It seems like while the film itself was mostly well received by film critics, it was a bit of a financial flop with a few notable figures like Sartre criticizing the film. Yet only 2 decades and a year later, it's hailed as THE Greatest Film of All Time. (And not for the last time, either). Was Welles as confused as I am about this development? (Also, apologies in advanced if this question was already answered).