I am currently watching a fellow fight all the bosses in Sekrio: Shadows Die Twice. Time period is basically Feudal Japan, probably during the time of the Shogunate. I'm watching two Shinobi duel with Katanas (or similar), when I reminded myself that Katanas are made with very low quality steel, so such an action should, in theory, snap the blades like a twig, right?

​

I know its a video game, but could Shinobi/Samurai duel with their weapons as displayed with little to no damage dealt to the weapon itself? If not, how did they fight each other? Did they aim to finish the bout in one strike, or is it more complicated than that?

My question is was their a point were the Emperor had real military and state power? I mean in the 2nd millennium all the power was in the hands of the shoguns to the point that Europeans thought the Shogun was the emperor and the actual emperor was their equivalent of a pope. Also, during the Heian period the Fujiwara clan held all the real authority through regent positions.

So was their any time when the country was ruled by the emperor?

What countries that were ruled by Britain participated in ww1 and what was their job? I know Canada was in the war and they sent soldiers to vimy and other places. What was India’s impact and what other countries under their rule joined and were they forced to join?

When I say Historical sector I mean places like:

• Longwood Gardens
• Historical locations
• Museums
• etc

Are there keywords to look up when job searching?

Are there better sites for finding jobs like these?

Even if the person has a history degree or not what jobs are out there?

I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes or bad wording typing isn't always easy for me.

Shortly I’ll be stationed in Bahrain, and would like to know more of the history of the region. Any recommendations that give a brief overview of the region from ancient to modern?

[deleted]

Wikipedia says that Cleopatra 'spoke Ethiopian, Trogodyte, Hebrew (or Aramaic), Arabic, the Syrian language (perhaps Syriac), Median, Parthian, and Latin'.

The site also says that Cleopatra was born in 69 BC and that Arabic didn't emerge until the 1st to 4th century common era.

For example, when did mirrors become commonplace? Did clear differences exist between members of different classes?

Both of there regions were swiftly conquered by muslims, yet only in Iran the original religion almost entirely disappeared. What were the factors that affected that?

From the Roman Kingdom to the Empire, to the Byzantine Period(s). When would the average person be best off in terms of real income?

​

Follow up, what kind of bundles would a citizen in that time period be purchasing?

Hello!

Some time ago I read several claims that mongols don't have skills in siege. And point to lack of success in mongols invasion in Hungary - they don't take stone castels and so.

But as far I know Baghdad have stone walls, but...they don' help.

So mongols have skills in siege warfare or not?

Thanks.

This precedes the existence of knights though. Did the Romans have a tradition resembling knighthood or is this a quirk of translation?

Germanic tribes, Gallic tribes, Illyrian tribes. What was a tribe? Was its structure formal or informal? How were the actions of the tribe, such as migrations and military actions, coordinated? What sort of importance did people place on their tribal affiliation? If the people in the next village over were a different tribe, how would that affect someone's view of them? Did these tribes have anything to do with the ruling structures that emerged, like kingships?

I know that's a lot to answer. I would be most appreciative even of a book recommendation.

From what I understand, for most of human history only a select few were literate. As such, most of our primary sources weren’t written common people of the time, but by the elite and well off. They were the only ones educated enough to be able to write down historical events.

Is there a general consensus on how this effects our view of history? How likely is it that the primary sources from which we learn history preclude us from learning about the average person at the time?

So we all know about the common question of why muskets supplanted bows if the latter seems better, and among the reasons cited is better accuracy. This is often responded by pointing out the limited role of accuracy in mass combat which better works focusing on firepower.

So i decided to read up on accuracy of musket fire in real combat situations during the age of the bayonet, and what really called my attention was not how accurate or inaccurate it was, but how well documented it is, with accounts ranging from absolute decimation of enemy formations in a few volleys, to fierce, extended firefights with massive volume but minimal losses, it included accounts from officers, generals and soldiers about how they perceived how effective musket fire was, with examples of battles from all over the period, we have tests dating from this period of the effectiveness of musket and cannon fire in controlled environments, heck even statistics of casualties compared to bullet usage from which we can infer some things. So it seems like we know really well how the dynamics of musket fire worked on the battlefield. But then it occurred to me, do we know as much about the usage of bows in mass formations, in such excruciating detail? As far as I'm aware, sources on medieval warfare are not only not as numerous as that of the early modern period, but they also aren't often interested in detailing battle experience and performance with such clarity, much less that of non nobles.

And i think this is important because another thing that I realized was that, more often than not, musket ineffectiveness stemmed not from the inherent inaccuracy of the weapon, but to the poor performance of soldiers in actual combat situations, and who can blame them? Under the threat of murderous musket fire, who is willing to get close enough to deliver controlled, disciplined, calm, murderous musket fire of their own? Soldiers would shoot at way too long of a range in anticipation, would shoot in a disorganized fashion, would just not shoot, would shoot as fast as possible disregarding actual aiming etc. Ideal performance was just that, an ideal.

Then comes the obvious implication, that literally none of the above is exclusive to musket warfare, people have feared for their life since I'm pretty sure forever, and there's no way the actual combat effectiveness of bow fire was as good as one might think simply based off theoretical considerations of maximum range and accuracy and whatnot. The thing is that i just don't have the same clear image of massed archery as I do for massed musketry, and I fear it is, as I say above, due to a lack of sources. So my question would be: just how much do we know about actual combat performance of archery when compared to our knowledge of musket performance? And if we know better about the latter, then do you think that this influences the popular perception of the musket as an inherently inaccurate weapon?

Was it common to use "bruh" in the 1850's?

Yes I do know that Britain ruled the 13 colonies for about 70 years and had a presence on the continent . Most Americans of European origin are German or Irish. Why not german or Gaelic as the national/official language. France ruled Quebec for about 170 years( almost as long as the British were on the continent) and in Quebec French is still widely used despite being part of canada/British territory for the past 300 years.