I won't waste anyone's time by asking of Russian presidents like to get messed up. But I was wondering how the secret service would handle this situation. Were there formal or informal mechanisms in place to monitor or prevent this kind of behaviour?

[deleted]

It's a very specific question, a friend of mine asked earlier today and 10 minutes of google didn't provide much.

So to be more clear, how much would say a unit of 1000 men from say the era of the Spanish War of Succession cost. And I guess it really doesn't make much sense because I assume not every European power had a unit of 1000 men, but the closest unit to that size would serve my purposes. And most importantly I'm Intrested in the variety in cost between nations

How would the Cost of a British unit compare to a French unit?

Im mainly intrested in France Britain and Spain but the Russian Polish, Prussian and Swedish costs would be good as well.

And I also assume the cost would vary greatly between different types of Infantry, so I'm asking for the "base" Infantry unit each nation.

(Im so sorry if this post violates a rule, I read it over and I think it should be ok, my apologies if Im mistaken)

Edit:

Thx so much for the great reply its so much more then I asked, which is great, and will help alot more :)

After taking control of Tenochtitlan, Spanish conquistadors faced stiff opposition as they tried to expand colonial control out if the Valley of Mexico. The Mixton and Chichimeca Wars, the centuries-long war in the Yucatán, and the prolonged conflicts in western Mexico cost the empire dearly.

What guerrilla or asymmetric warfare strategies/tactics were used to confront colonial expansion? How did those strategies differ region to region, or change over time?

Thanks in advance!

There's a ton of Shakespeare productions that update the plays' settings, so that the plays speak clearer to more contemporary issues. Some other notable examples include Orson Welles' Voodoo Macbeth (1936, Haitian Revolution) and Julius Caesar (1937; Fascist Italy), Ian McKellan's Richard III (1995, fascist England), Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo + Juliet (1996, 90s LA), and Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus (2011, 21st century Europe).

I've heard it said many times that hoplite heavy infantry fighting in formation was not well-suited to Greek terrain, but I've never heard what a more-logical fighting style would be. It doesn't feel like the terrain would be and more forgiving to cavalry. Is there a more natural way of war and did anyone in the area fight like that? Are the terrain limitations overblown?

I don't mean what he did, I mean, who was he as a person? I've been poking around just for shits and gigs and there seems to be almost nothing known about his personal life, in fact, there's almost nothing that seems to be known about him beyond his works and accomplishments as a writer, so, who actually was he? what was his early life like? how did he get his education? did he ever have family? friends? was he charismatic and outgoing or more recluse? these are the kind of questions that interest me about famous historical figures

Coming fresh off the heels of WWII you'd think the U.S. would be poised to win rather easily. Yet most of what I've read on this subject shows of significant problems in the early stages of the war. I know budgets were obviously cut along with considerable demobilization but it seemed far too worse to believe.

​

Is it true that when Truman called for a blockade of North Korea the navy told him I'd only be possible on paper? The US navy literally fielded 24 Essex Class Carriers, along with Midway Class Carriers being built. Not to mention the other carriers of various configurations...

During air battles like the Battle of Britain, and aerial combat in general, the vast majority of rounds fired missed. What happened when they fell to the ground?

By which I mean influential in internal Soviet politics and decision-making

I've read that coffee was an old person's drink in the 70s and 80s, but by the 90s more young people were drinking it.

Why did younger people during that period not embrace it? What were they drinking instead?

What happened in the 90s to turn things around?

I know that Italy used gas against Abyssinia before WWII, but I haven’t heard of gas being used in combat during WWII. If Hitler had no problem using gas on civilians during the Holocaust, why didn’t he use it in combat? Also, German was developing nuclear weapons, I find it hard to understand why they wouldn’t implement other WMDs.

I’ve heard about this but I don’t actually know if this is true.

My understanding is that prior to the Renaissance, the world was fairly equal. There were people living feudally and tribally. The feudal system (in its various forms) was practiced in many parts of Europe and Asia, but I don't know if it really existed elsewhere. I don't think any particular group of people had vastly different ideas around the time of 700-1400 CE.

Why did the renaissance spring up in Europe in particular and not elsewhere (or am I wrong, and it did happen elsewhere)? Why did the enlightenment springup in Europe? How are these events connected?

I'm just going to spitball a response, and you can correct me wherever you like.

• The renaissance and the enlightenment were the same movement, just spread out over a number of years because there were many dependencies in the chain of thought that lead from start to conclusion (you need Bacon before Newton, Newton before Gauss, etc).
• The movement was based upon understanding and controlling the known world. This had the effect of: (a) gaining knowledge unlike ever before, (b) spreading dominance throughout the world, aka colonization and statecraft
• The main reasons it happened in Europe: (a) monotheism, (b) lots of war. Monotheism causes you to want to do things for your god and seek to understand him. Polytheistic cultures tend to explain away all phenomenons with gods, so there's less reason to look into things; it's just god magic. Monotheism also generates the idea that there is "one true way", which is why you may want to control things according to ideas. Never before was this tried. War can potentially aid in the movement, as it provides both a lucrative motivation to have better technology, and it creates weary people who seek to reason more deeply about human nature than perhaps they would otherwise. It can also lead to a diversity of opinions, as perhaps the alternatives to a bunch of warring nations are either just one huge and happy nation under one banner or a bunch of small nations which are too uncommunicative and disinterested to ever cross cultural boundaries. It also creates different class structures than if the nations didn't have much war. I believe warring nations tend to have slightly more fair class structures, as officers tend to come from upper classes, which makes them live lives that are closer to the lower classes than they otherwise would. This may be why the Western upperclass traditionally cares a lot about athletics and martial arts (interestingly, not something you see in many other cultures). This class structure inspired more egalitarian thinking, which is revolutionary in the face of plain old feudalism. Perhaps this is the origin of humanism of the time.

[deleted]

I'm writing a book with pseudo-historical elements and I'm looking for detailed answers and/or good resources which cover relevant topics.

The scenario is as follows:

1. The band consists of 3–5 people who are skilled archers, good at climbing and decent at sneaking (they are hunter-gatherers). They have access to rope; possibly a grappling hook.

2. The city they have to infiltrate would be somewhere between Uruk, Akkad (so, old cities) and perhaps Ancient Rome (forgive the vast time differential here) in terms of fortifications and military technology. Basically, they'd have walls, possibly the odd watch-tower/turret and may have guards patrolling the wall.

Would it realistically have been feasible to at all infiltrate a city like this without getting spotted, or would you have gotten noticed and instantly captured or killed?

Many thanks for your time!

I've heard people say he did or that he didn't rape her, or that it was consensual etc but no one has ever provided sources/evidence for their claims; so I was wondering what proof there is that he had sexual relations with Hemmings (or any of his slaves)

Hi Guys!

I’m involved in a book-project. And we are wondering wether or not one Can find lists of prisoners from the Meppen-Dalum camp. And my google-fu has Met it’s limit here.

Thanks!