i was playing Civilization and started the Black Death campaign and noticed that if you discover the middle class you win....heard about this and wanted to verify that during the black death, people not only gained more benefits but now have more stable lives than before it and thus defeating the plague and gaining vast knowledge... does this hold historic background?

Surely the romans is as much of a match like the vikings or the many city-states of italy like venice when it comes to seamanship, grasp on weather, navigation and logistics on long time travel as those civilization of different parts of europe and era?

I know blunt weapons werent rare, but it feels like the standard infantry weapon has always been some sort of polearm with a sharp end like pikes, halberds, billhooks, bardiches etc. However armor has been a nuisance since the early medieval period, and my understanding is that plate armor really started to become widespread in the 1400s, yet infantry seems to have still used bladed weapons instead of long hammers etc. Is there a reason for that?

My farther who was a WW2 vet, told me the leaders were worried the green and untested US troops would falter, so they dressed experienced allied troops to be the first ashore.

Were guns in ww2 as accurate as guns today? If not how inaccurate were they?

With weapons so accurate and really stubborn commanders who refused to take a glance across the great big pond, it's no wonder why tactics quickly went from linear Gustavus/Napoleonic tactics to something else (I phrased my sentence that way for what will be apparent soon), however it never made sense to me why commanders on both sides never considered replacing these outdated tactics with open order, free command tactics that would use open or concealed cover, aimed fire, and rapid movement to apply pressure on the opposing side.

One of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is that the first tries to be plain and unadorned, while the latter adopts a grandiloquent style, specially in the Baroque period. I was wondering what the main influences on the grandiloquent artistic style and the pompous rethoric that predominated during the Baroque period might be. Was Catholicism already grandiose even before the Baroque? What influenced the Baroque style?

I’m a history major who recently graduated and I have been wanting to deep-dive more into Russian history. I’m very familiar with European/US/Latin American history but have always been fascinated with Russia. I want to read something regarding the KGB/Cold War period but really open to anything.

Thanks!

I've never known a more ideologically fraught aspect of history where I see every side seemingly more interested in scoring points against the enemy than they are with genuinely seeking an honest interpretation of what it was like on the ground. What are the best ways of finding trusted sources on countries like the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, China ect without uncritically swallowing red scare and/or red guard lies/spin/ommissions?

You're a 21st century Uber driver with a strong desire to be clever and witty online though your interest in history. You want to know what a historical person's daily life was like along with amusing special scenarios he may get involved in.

It's okay to use the 3rd person for people who are not you. "A 3rd century goat herder gets into a land dispute with..."

I say we petition to have these fake first person questions banned in favor of questions framed in the right tense. They are always answered that way anyways and produce a more consistent dialogue.

When developing nuclear weaponry, did they just want a bomb that makes a big explosion, or did they intend for the radiation to cause further damage for decades following?

I've been learning a lot about the history of Europe (damn you Patrick Wyman) and one of the things that really stuck out was a comment about how individuals defined themselves. It was said that people identified at a town level or a family level. This causes me some confusion because I'm not sure I really understand how to put myself into that mindset.

Firstly, is this accurate?

Secondly, assuming it is at least partially accurate, how best can I understand this? The very concept of me as an individual being defined by "we" instead of "me" is hard to understand.

Thirdly, When did people start identifying as individuals, in the modern sense of the identity of self?

Bonus: Are there any recommended books on the subject?

I was interested to know, before cannons came into play, how were naval forces trained for warfare? Were they just made up of levied sailors who were given swords and axes to try to board the enemy ships? Were they made up of soldiers trained to row and fight in equal portion? Was it a mix of the two? Or were there specialized naval academies of some sort where they trained people?

​

As well, how did the two sides in a naval battle fight(since there are a lot of "age of the sail"movies about fighting with cannons and none about what came before)? Did they just ram each other? Use bows? Did they have catapults or scorpion crossbows loaded onto the ships? And did they try to shoot through the hull of the other ship to sink 'em? Or just tried to shoot the other rowers/sailors? Did they ever armour plate ships to reinforce them? Or just did it with fancy craftsmanship(think "Old Ironsides"in a later age.)

​

Thanks for any info in advance! Know this is a longwinded question. :)

Alright so I have been having an interest in historical events for a while now, specifically pre Columbian history and I know Spain often did destroy towns in terms of conquest, the majority of them being smaller but why is it, when they went to the capital cities such as tenochtitlan or cusco, cities that Spain has multiple accounts of appreciating, with Spanish seeing tenochtitlan and wondering if they were dreaming, or seeing Cusco and saying it is beautiful and would be remarkable even for Spain, why did they destroy them? Even after there were lots of surviving architecture even after the conquests, did they just settle there out of laziness? Or is there something else too it? I could maybe see as to why they destroyed tenochtitlan seeing as t had a fairly nice location and a lot of the city had burned down leaving just the stone structure that had been damaged, but why Cusco? It is a city up in the mountains that is over 1000 kilometers away from Lima and was susceptible to Incan attacks even after the Incan empire fell because of the successor state being the neo Incan state

Hi everyone! So I want to learn history of the world in such a way that I gain an understanding of the origin and histories of different ethnic groups (and not necessarily nations as we know them today) in different parts of the world. The majority of sources that I come up with through searching are histories of not the people, but just long string of dynasties, kings, queens and wars. And that's just boring to me, and gives little insight about the different groups of people.

As an example, I'm from Iran. I had a standard history education, but that does not translate to where Kurds, Lurs, or Baloch people (who are ethnic groups who are actually in Iran right now) fit into all of this. Or for example, when I search, say, "history of China", I get dynasties, and no insight into the different groups of people living in China today. What branch of history addresses the specific thing I'm talking about?

Title more or less says it all. Thanks in advance!

When cities fell they used to be sacked by the attackers. These days this fortunately isn't nearly as common. When did this shift in treatment of captured cities happen?