By "height of feudalism" I mean the time when a king was most reliant on his landed vassals to provide soldiers rather than privately salaried ones.

I remember there being a quote of him saying something about his socialism was different from communism, the value of the individual and how all great things first came from a single mind. What was the quote?

[deleted]

I want to apologize, I know that "medieval times" could be considered to be beyond vague, but my knowledge about the different time periods is very limited. The reason I'm asking this is because in fiction, whether its novels, movies or tv series, the most intimidating opponent the hero can face, is usually a tall, brutish warrior towering over him.

Even though such an opponent would certainly be stronger on average, strength usually isn't the deciding factor in melee combat. Speed is. That's why all those oversized swords we see in fantasy stories would be a significant disadvantage in real life.

But with Archery it's a little bit different. Wouldn't an extraordinarily tall, strong person be able to use a much, much more powerful bow? Not just because of physical strength alone, but simply because how much further he could pull back the bowstring, considering his arms are much longer?

[deleted]

Were the Chinese immigrants predominately from a certain ethnic group or from several different ones? How did this ethnic difference effect the Chinese community in the US?

It seems that Pontus, the Seleucids, and Macedonians lost nearly every single battle against the Romans. It's an atrocious record for a military system that was so successful before.

In comparison, Germans, Gauls, and Carthaginians were able to inflict significant defeats on Roman forces.

Why were the Romans able to dominate the phalanx-based militaries so easily, compared to their other adversaries? Can it be reduced to the phalanx being an outdated tactcial system, or were their other significant weaknesses that caused the decline of the phalanx effectiveness after Alexander?

To Elaborate: I've read that the first Hittites lived in Nesa (Kanesh) and were called and spoke Nesite. Was Nesite the precursor to Hittite? Or was it a different language? Also, up to what point did Nesite stop being spoken? Was it a unique feature of the Assyrian Colonial Period in Hittite history, or did it last into Anitta's time or even Hattusili's?

I am currently researching FDR's foreign policy leadership in the lead up to WWII and I have not found a source that exclusively tackles U.S.-Japanese diplomacy immediately preceding WWII in depth. Most of the books that discuss this topic deal with it tangentially.

I have already ordered:Power and Culture: The Japanese-American War, 1941 - 1945 (from the AskHistorians book list) ,Threshold of War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Entry into World War II, The Reluctant Belligerent : American Entry into World War II, and America First: The Battle against Intervention, 1940-4 from my university library. Right now I am working through a smattering of biographies, histories of the pacific war, and books about FDR's european policy. If anyone knows of a book that explores this topic in depth it would be immensely helpful. Thank you in advance

In the movie Death of Stalin we see that the Bishops attended the funeral. Also, the woman who played the piano and sent the note really said in her letter to Stalin that she would donate the money she received to the church she attended. However, I thought the church was suppressed in the Soviet Union and not many people admitted to being church goers back then.

I guess around the same time the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped, The USSR launched a huge invasion in Northern Japan. I hear that this is the real reason Japan surrendered during WW2, and the reason we think it was because of the nukes is because of the pro-American society we live in. But I also hear it is a common WW2 fallacy such as that the allies bombed Dresden after the war ended just for revenge.

Anyone have any thoughts?

I’m nothing more than an American that loves to consume all things British, but it seems like the Welsh are a culture within the larger British nation while Scotland always feels like it is a separate entity that co-exists along with Britain. What about their respective histories has led to this blending and also not blending?

The implication was that manufactures existed before the industrial revolution, but what are the other differences?

In chapter fifteen of Noam Chomsky's 1988 essay The Culture of Terrorism, he makes the point that enthusiastic support for Hitler's program of anti-semitism never really had a broad base, even among Nazi party members - and that for the most part, the German public was largely uninterested or ambivalent about it. He cites a study conducted by Norman Cohn to support this point.

This characterisation of the German public is important for left-wing thought for a variety of reasons, but I was wondering about how true it is. Was the average German extremely invested in the execution of anti-semitic policies in Germany at the time?

So, what was Germany like in those times? How was society? Was there serious advancements in technology? What country was Germany? And was there a strong Anglo Saxon or old English but prevalent influence and history?