Levy? Mercenary? Free farmer? Poor/rich? Married/unmarried? Experienced/inexperienced in war? Was my father probably a professional soldier or not?
Etc.

Hello. I'm writing a fantasy history, in a complete fictional world. I want to establish a narrative that makes a group of humans previously organized in tribes, to change their administration and secular structure of power into a Feudal monarchy.

First I thought on some historical examples on how it came to be, and so the real life parallels I could think of were the Goths, the Lombards and the Frankish. Still, they don't really fit with what I am aiming for. I've been wandering how did more distant realms been formed as Duchies and Kingdoms, those of the Baltic States, for instance, that I imagine were less susceptible to Roman influence than the Goths or the Frankish. It seems that roman catholicism played a major part on it, but to what extent? How did those people assimilated catholicism in their culture or how did they resist? What reasons did they had to accept a King instead of a tribal leader?

So, Francis the first of France, had a major rivalry with Charles Vth of Austria and Spain. This rivalry notably started when Francis and Charles wanted both to be emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but, being French and thus not at all part of the Empire, how could he be abble to run for this position? And what where the conditions to be elected Holy Roman emperor?

Sorry for the bad English, I'm not 100% confident on the translation of specific terms

[deleted]

I have read letters and journals of American servicemen dated to 1945 where they were already using the word "Kamikaze". What I want to know is where the American s first heard that term and how they came to use it.

I’m not just asking about the language, but more broadly about the national identity. When did the people of the Italian peninsula stop identifying as “Latin” or “Roman” as opposed to “Italian”? Mussolini wanted to reform the Roman Empire, but when he addressed the people he called them “italiani”, when Dante spoke of the Latin language and vulgar language , not Italian, but he was aware of the different Romance languages, so when did the shift happen?

[deleted]

I have heard the above narrative from local people while traveling in Galicia, Spain. From that telling, it sounds like Juan-Carlos I defied expectations and imposed democracy from the top down. Did he really have the option to assume Franco-style dictatorial powers, or was he bending to some popular demand for change?

There doesn't seem to be much information (the Wiki article is one short paragraph and the source of the proportion statement for what it's worth...). There seems to be only one recent book on Soviet counterinsurgency from the Baltics to the Ukraine, and on Amazon the top review is a one star claiming the author was not careful in their research. Any reading recommendations is welcome!

So I know that the Soviet Union armed north Vietnam and supported them. But did they send any troops to Vietnam? If so, were they like spies, and what were their missions? When during the war did these secret soldiers operate, like what years?

So nowadays the smallest form of a unit is a squadron of im correct. But how were the units organized and arranged in the revolutionary war? So what made up what, were their platoons, squadrons etc, what was the smallest form of units?

[deleted]

What was the price of eggs in the lead up to the French Revolution?

Need to do a research paper on a corporation that exists today and any externalities that it has. If anybody could direct me to some sources that possibly talk about all the bad stuff this company has done to people, that would be appreciated.

I'm doing some reading on the Mexican Revolution, since I didn't learn much about it in school. One character that's sticking out in my mind, more than anyone, is US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson. As far as I understand it, Wilson acted against direct orders from the President in order to collaborate with a to-be military dictator to overthrow and murder a democratically elected President, feeding lies to Taft in the White House the whole time. Which, on paper, is totally despicable but, in practice, is totally despicable. The book I'm reading is more pop-history than academic-history (I think it describes Wilson as "deranged" at one point, which is hardly unbiased), so I'm coming here to see if I've been given the correct picture.

• How did a guy like Henry Lane Wilson ascend to an office as important as ambassador to Mexico?

• What did Wilson have against Madero and his government in the first place? Madero mostly kept the same Porforista cronies around and didn't pursue any radical domestic reforms or foreign policy agendas, so why was Wilson so against him? Did Madero spit in his coffee?

• If Wilson's actions were in pursuit of American business interests, were there any specific businesses or individuals that he had in mind? Was this a tit-for-tat deal, or just some generalized capitalist zeal?

• What sort of relationship did he have with General Huerta? The book I'm reading describes them as "drinking buddies", but again I'm not sure how true-to-life the book I'm reading may be. Was he similarly friendly with other actors in the coup d'etat?

• How instrumental was Wilson in the coup's success? Had he remained neutral as ordered, would it have been a success?

• How were Wilson's actions received by the American and Mexican press, respectively? Was he lionized, demonized, ignored?

• How did Wilson manage to get off the hook? Aside from Woodrow Wilson dismissing him from his ambassadorship, he seems to have bounced back fine instead of being, y'know, tried for insubordination and treason.

I seriously hate this guy (I particularly hate him saying that Madero's assassination was somehow the fault of Madero's wife, smug bastard), to the degree that I'm not sure if I'm being led astray by biased source material. Thanks in advance for any answers!

According to Wikipedia, the rebels even established their own state. What was that state like?

I keep hearing that the moors were not really planning to invade France, and it was just a raiding party, how much truth is there to this?

The late Republic and early Empire maintained contact with Britain, propping up a system of client states. But did the Romans themselves ever set foot in Britain between Caesar and Claudius, or did they rely on middlemen (like Britons who visited the Republic/Empire, and/or Gauls who visited Britain)? All I know is that some of Tiberius's navy accidentally landed in Britain and came back with fabulous stories of monsters.

EDIT: Clarity

As I mentioned in another question post, I'm greatly enjoying my non-historian jaunt through Shelby Foote.

Reading about the Seven Days Battles, we understand that the engineer McClellan sometimes took fantastic positions atop highly defensible hills, and he was able to repulse Confederate attacks, giving tremendous casualties while taking very few. Neglecting the fact that McClellan would sometimes give these positions up for ill-advised reasons, the rebels would sometimes make repeated disastrous attacks against them before they fell. My question is, if daylight attacks through the open field were near suicidal, why didn't the Confederates cross the open fields in front of the hill at night and wait in position for an early morning attack at point blank range?

My understanding is that the ubiquity of rifles, a result of the Minie Ball rendering muskets obsolete, made massed formation attacks very deadly compared to battles just a few years or decades earlier. Whereas in the age of musketry, a mass formation would sustain only one or two volleys on its way toward its objective, in the age of rifles several volleys could be put on target in the same amount of time, making exactly these types of open field advances much more deadly. So then, even when not advancing on a hill, but anytime you expect to advance to a prepared position, it seems obvious to me that you should attempt to do so under cover of night and be right up in front of your target before sunrise.

I understand that you run into the danger of veering off and missing your target, of mixing regiments up in the night, and of running into enemy pickets (or even going too far and running into your target before sunrise), but these seem like small prices to pay, especially if attacks had been repulsed repeatedly throughout the day.

I understand that commanders would often march their men towards their targets during the night to achieve surprise, but never the point of contact. This makes sense to me, as when entering a new AO commanders would want to get a view of the field before committing their troops, but in the case of a field that they've been fighting on all day, it seems like an obvious solution to cross open terrain at night. What am I missing here?