I keep finding on the net that in medieval times, peasants and nobles owed 40 days a year of military service to their ruler.
But that doesn't make any sense, how could anyone have accomplished anything worthwhile in only 40 days?

My question is if it was only 40 days and also (if it is as such), how did rulers keep their subjects in their armies for longer periods of time.
Did they pay them to remain? Did they force them to stay? And did some of them volunteer to stay?

The question is regarding High Middle Ages up to the end of the Middle Ages. Any answer will do.

From what I'm told, Chinese Empires traditionally had a chauvinistic and Sino-centric view of the world in which China was the only truly civilized state in the world with everything else beyond their borders being different shades of barbarians. Tang China, considered one of the strongest Chinese dynasties ever, however had a powerful rival in the neighbouring Tibetan Empire whom they fought numerous wars with. The Tibetans even occupied the Tang capital for a short while.

Did the Tang still see Tibet as lesser barbarians despite this?

I'm wondering about why Lincoln did what he did. His decision caused the most deadly war in american history. Did he expect a civil war? If so, why didn't he wait or just let later presidents outlaw slavery when it would have been accepted enough in the south to not cause war? Did he believe in it so much that he couldn't have waited or were there other factors at play? (Im not disagreeing with his position, just wondering if his motivations were different than what is widely believed)

I heard from one person that Hitler killed Gay people in holocaust but same person told no lesbian was killed in holocaust. So, why exactly Hitler was against the Gay people but not against the Lesbians? Were there any religious, cultural or social reasons for it?

I'm aware of mythologal origin stories for many animals, suchs as horses and spiders. There's also many animals with symbolic importance such as birds, bulls, goats etc which are mentioned in mythology.

It seems to me that mosquitoes are severely underrepresented, considering how often I hear people complain about mosquitoes now a days. Did nobody have issues with these little buggers in classical times? Didn't they wonder where they're from?

My question: are there any mention of mosquitoes in any (especially Greek and Roman) mythologies? If not. Are there any non mythological sources that mention them?

If they did travel at night, was that limited to cargo only, or did passenger trains travel by night as well? Did they use oil lamps in the compartments? Was there a high risk of fires?

Surly this would have put them at a great advantage, seizing the one of the US'S most strategic Pacific Bases. Why not? Was it too well defended?

I'll explain me better: US Navy was indeed the strongest, but what about Japanese and Royal Navy for example? Could Japan win a naval war againist UK or Italy?

Hey there - just a repost of a question I asked last month which sadly managed to sink downwards on the rankings.

I'm hoping that invoking a few flaired users may help my cause here. From a perusal of the flair list, it might fall under /u/ada_love regarding early modern Britain.

I was sidetracked from my studies by an excellent post here involving English Dissenters by /u/Noodlebloom and decided to look up the Fifth Monarchists, and from there the Dissenters more broadly.

I came across a piece of anti-Dissenter work, 'A Catalogue of the severall Sects and Opinions in England and other Nations. With a briefe Rehearsall of their false and dangerous Tenents', which had a very memorably written scheme.

As a taster:

'Anti-Trinitarians.
That dare to search into the Trinity,
And in divine distinctions much to pry:
Christs humane nature they would dare to staine,
As ours by Adams guilt, but all in vaine:
Then let's beware, least diving thus too far,
We leese our love, and much increase sad jar.'

Was this use of rhymes a common device in the broadsheets? Were there other common stylistic elements as well? 

Cheers :)

Sent here by r/legaladvice. I was wondering if the CSA are still considered enemies of the USA. I can not find a definite list that defines who all are considered "enemies of United States". How did the CSA's surrender and collapse cause a change in status in this regard?

My question is the following: What factors lead to Zurvanism disappearing as an organized branch of Zoroastrianism?

*and was handed over two years later

Hong Kong and Macau were the two largest major European colonies in China. When Hong Kong was given to China, it was viewed as a major turning point in world history. Prince Charles himself referred to it as the official end of the British Empire. Since then, Hong Kong has been a hotbed of controversy on the world stage due to China's actions in the city (as most should know if they follow the news lately).

Macau existed centuries longer than Hong Kong (it was actually formed during the Ming Dynasty), but in contrast with Hong Kong it seems like it was not as big a deal when it was given to China. Why is this? Even today compared to Hong Kong things seem to be much more "relaxed" for lack of a better term. Both are 'Special Administrative Regions" within China and hold a great deal of autonomy, but it is rare to see a major news story centered around China "cracking down on Macau" like you do in regard to Hong Kong. Why is this?

Would things like nearsightedness be considered something similar to losing a limb or going death since it would be impossible to see normally without corrective lenses?

I heard somewhere that America's founding fathers engaged in acts that would be considered terrorist actions, though I can't remember any examples being cited by the person that I heard it from. I was wondering if there was any actual evidence to support this or if my source was just making stuff up.

I could be wrong, but it seems that her uncle, King William IV, had something like twelve children. Why would the throne pass to her and not one of them? Furthermore, why was a female heir acceptable and even preferable over King William IV's children, but Victoria's eldest child, a daughter, did not take the throne when her mother died?

  I'm reading Innocent, a historical comic set in the mid 18th century that depicts the lives of various real and fictional people (predominately in France) and has wavering elements of historical accuracy. 
 But one scene in felt particularly strange. It featured a young Marie Antoinette being forced by her mother to watch a "demonstration" of intercourse while looking at explicit illustrations of Roman and Greek gods in various positions. Aside from this seeming horrifying and implausible, it made me wonder how involved royal families themselves were involved in the sex education of their children.
  Are there accounts or mentions similar to these or does this seem like some exaggerated historical fiction?

I mean, even if we bring up the M2 carbine, it was distributed more as a PDW/SMG, right? With most of the infantry being given garands, right? Kalashnikovs though were distributed as standard infantry weapons due to the understanding of how to apply assault rifles.

Would they report the harassers to their commanding officers? Would they even bother? And if they're a 'PPZH' (Polevaya Pokhodnaya Zhena), can they leverage their position in anyway?

So I am an avid fan of musical theater and I happened to stumbled upon a musical called SIX about Henry the eighth’s six wives. And I wanted to know two things:

One: Did Cathrine Howard have as much of a Terrible love life and hard living situation as the musical suggests and

Two: How accurate are the personalities of the queens in and outside of the musical. Were they exaggerated for entertainment purposes?

Really interested in this frame of history

Thanks :)

[deleted]

During a recent tour of the World War II museum in New Orleans, I saw a number of samurai swords on display. The placards indicated that these swords were obtained by American soldiers during service in the Pacific theater. My question has 2 parts:

1 - While physical mutilation or the taking of body-part souvenirs was clearly prohibited, was it the same for swords, pistols, etc?

2 - For historians who have a preservationist or archives background: what is the etiquette for displaying trophies of war that have historical significance? For example, if a looted painting or artistic item of value is recovered after the war by a soldier, there is an expectation that it will be returned to the rightful owner. Would this not also be the case for family heirlooms? A samurai sword that's been in a family for generations seems to fall under similar considerations as a famous painting, etc. Are museums expected to do due diligence in tracking down the family associated with a samurai sword obtained as a battlefield prize?

I understand that a mass manufactured item like a Luger or helmet doesn't require such due diligence, but it seems like a historical artifact associated with a specific family should, if at all possible, be returned to the family. Is this not the case?