[deleted]

I have looked online, but didn't find much. Does anybody have any suggestions?

From my knowledge mughal soldiers wore a combination of plate and mail armor and often carried small disc shields with them. Wouldnt the widespread use of gunpowder have made these obsolete? I know that in the 1600s large quantities of muskets were being used in Indian warfare, so why were soldiers, and often cavalry so heavily armored? Did the armor help stop bullets, and if so why didn't contemporary western armies use armour?

What were some beliefs associated with dental hygiene?

I understand that during the Middle Ages the Doge of Venice was elected by the people in a similar fashion to a modern republic, though the Doge would have a lot more authority than a modern president/prime minister. I remember reading that the Doge would have to swear an oath, but what legal regulations and limits would be placed on the Doge, and what was the limit of the Doge’s power?

They must have been quite the delicacy right?Since it was hunted to extinction.

[deleted]

The Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, Xochimilca, Chalca, etc are all various subgroups of the broader Nahua culture. By most accounts, they migrated into Central Mexico, primarily around what's Mexico city and the surronding valleys today, throughout the 13th and 14th centuries AD; transitoning from Aridoamerican nomadism and into Mesoamerican urban statehood, eventually coalescing into the Aztec empire after a series of wars and successon disputes under the control of a triple alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan, which were inhabated primarily by Mexica(ns), Acolhuans,and Tepanecans respectively.

However, you don't really hear about this level of discerete subcultural/ethnic groupings for other Mesoamerican cultures, or at least not that i've encountered. The Mixtec are just the Mixtec, the Zapotec are just the Zapotec, same for the Purepecha, Totonacs, Huastecs, Tlapanec, Otomi and I don't even know the cultural status of the groups in central mexico but not belonging to the Nahuas or Otomi, such as whatever culture Cholula, Huextozinco, or Xochicalco; or the various states of West Mexico (other then the Purepecha Empire) like Jalisco or Colmia.

The only exception to this are the Maya, who seem to, relative to the Nahua, Mixtec, Zapotec, etc; seem to even be more culturally diverse and a higher-level label, being it's own 30-lanuggae large language tree, vs Nahuatl being a single language in the Uto-Aztecan tree, or Zapotec and Mixtec being single languages in the Oto-Manguean tree.

This begs the question what the "cultural taxonomy" of Mesoamerica is like. I have many questions, but i'm going to split them up into 3 main groupings:

1. Are Mexica, Acolhua, etc really more subgroups, or are they more discrete cultures like Mixtec vs Zapotec? What about the Mexica's subgroups of the Tlatoloca and Tenochca? If Tenochtitlan hadn't conquered and absorbed Tlatelolca, would they be treated as distinct like the Acolhua and Tepaneca. I imagine not since there were multiple cities belonging to each, but still. That also begs the question of what the political connotations of those groupings were: I've seen Texcoco described as the "Acolhua captial"; so were all the Acolhua cities under the domionon of Texcoco? Were each group politically aligned?

2. In regards to the Maya, where do they fit into this? What are the major Maya cultural subdivisons? I know I've heard lowland vs highland; or Kiche vs Itza vs Chontal, but I don't know any actual information about them. Would it be accurate to say that those divisions are more "taxonomically" comparable to Mixtec, Zapotec, or Nahua rather then "Maya" itself is, as if those were all genuses but Maya is a Family? It defdinetely seems something like that, considering the aformentioned nature of Maya linguistics and that the Maya compose an absolutely huge proportion of Mesoamerica geographically, across the entire Yucatan peninsula, which is like 1/3 of Mesoamerica.

3. This/these tie into the last point of 2, but I see Mesoamerica often split up into quadrants: the Yucatan/East/The Maya, the Gulf Coast, Oaxaca/Guerero, the West, and then the Center. Are these actually appropriate cultural subdivisions? If so, then "Maya" would indeed be a much more expansive label then just Nahua or Mixtec. I also see "central Mexico" mentioned a lot in a way that to me implies less the center of quadrants, as above, but more the entire central 1/3 of Mesoamerica, as opposed to Western Mexico and the Yucatan/the Maya. This also, to me, seems to be somewhat on point in terms of art motifs: Nahua and Mixtec art seems to share a lot of motifs and design traits, much moreso then Nahua or Mixtec vs Maya Is THAT division into 1/3's along the East-West appropriate? Do gulf coast cultures, central mexican ones, and Oaxaca/Guerrero ones share as much with each other as the various maya groups or West Mexican cultures? I will say that while Nahua and Mixtec art seems very, very similar, their art is noticably different from the Gulf Coast.

I realize i'm asking a lot here, I don't expect every reply to address every part of my post here, but even just answering indivual subquestions would be helpful. Thanks!

What event set the fall of Rome inexorably in motion, making it impossible to save?

Their contemporaries the Rolling Stones come across as sex and drug extremists, perhaps even establishing the mould for 1970s arena rock bands (I'm looking at you, Zeppelin) who were known to take heroin and cocaine and sleep with multiple women every night while on tour.

Why have I never heard tell of the Beatles engaging in such behavior?

This invites the question of why elite ethnic groups with pre-existing religious structures tend to abandon or amend them to align with ‘weaker’ conquered peoples?

Specifically guns from the late 1800's*

​

I have a Billinghurst target gun owned by Benjamin F. Green. I have some documentation saying that Benjamin shot a gun owned by David Crocket. If anyone could help me learn more it would be greatly appreciated.

So, in the 1700s and 1800s when line infantry with firearms were in practice, how effective was a volley?

I also believe I understand the American Civil War was especially brutal because they were using line tactics with rifled firearms and were accurate and could cause massive casualties. Was this the case?

Some movies portray it as a fair amount of casualties (The Patriot and Waterloo) and then some video game mods that claim realism (mainly Nepoleonic mod for Nepoleon Total War) make it so only a handful, maybe 5 or 6 men would be hit in a volley from 200+ men (I know smooth bore rifles and the smoke and haze probably have something to do with it). Or was it the case of who could stand there the longest with receiving minimal casualties and eventually one side broke, then 90% of casualties came from the route like medieval times?

I recently read the KJV Old Testament at request of one of my students, and was quite surprised by how little fanfare or special treatment "The Ten Commandments" receives as a concept. And yet, many contemporary and historical theologians have attributed them to be the absolute foundation of the Abrahamic traditions.

Was it always this way?

Did Neolithic Hebrews pay special credence to "The Ten Commandments", or were they considered equally important to other laws? Did sentiments towards the Ten Commandments change before, during, or after Babylonian captivity? What about Roman occupation?

If, historically, these ten commandments were ever given equal or similar weight to the other hundred or so commandments mentioned in the same books, how, when, and why, did these ten commandments become "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS."??

Okay so the background on this question is simple. There is a house on the corner in my town that used to fly 4 flags: US, Confederate battle flag, Don't tread on me, and P.O.W. Flag. Recently some of those flags were getting tattered and they were all replaced with new flags. It's just a creepy feature in this town. Now they are flying: US, Confederate, Army Ranger, and finally today I was able to see the fourth, Cherokee Braves.

I looked up the Cherokee Braves flag and found it represented a Confederate regiment called the First Cherokee Mounted Rifles. Which sounded weird to me since I hadn't realized that the Confederacy was friendly with native people's. Turns out they really weren't because the further down the wikipedia page (which is very confusing) it sounds like this regiment burnt down their chief's house as well as the Cherokee council chambers.

Basically the wiki article is confusing but it sounds like this regiment was happy to put themselves in line with forces that didn't seem to like them very much. I am curious how they were seen within the confederacy. If the Confederates had won would these soldiers have still been a much lower class of citizens? How were they viewed among other Native populations? I get the feeling what was left of the Creeks were not huge fans despites starting out ambivilent. And after the war what did the Union forces, government and civillians think of these native americans? I guess it'd be similar to thoughts about all black regiments within the Confederate army...which I feel like were a thing but I cannot say I remember for sure.

Thanks.

In reading about battles in the Napoleonic Wars, it seems that cavalry played a huge role in many battles. Cavalry seems to dominate infantry whenever they catch them in the open and not fully organized. Just the threat of a cavalry charge often cause the infantry to form squares or at least a line of four ranks, which decreases their firepower and make them more vulnerable to enemy infantry and artillery. Heavy cavalry sometimes even charge prepared infantry positions in the middle of the line in an attempt to shock and break them.

In contrast, it seems like cavalry play a peripheral role on the Civil War battlefield. They may clash with enemy cavalry on the outskirts of the battle. Or, maybe they're used for their tactical mobility and fight dismounted like infantry. It seems extremely rare for them to ride down infantry battalions caught in the open or act as shock troops to charge and break the enemy line.

If I'm not making incorrect assumptions, why the difference? The sabers and bayonets are the same. Civil War soldiers have rifles instead of smoothbore muskets--better range and accuracy, but no better rate of fire and neither is likely to get off more than one good, point blank shot at charging cavalry. Is it some other technological change? Differences in training or doctrine? Different, more infantry friendly terrain in the US? Something else?