I'm developing a short movie, inspired by samurai cinema ( chanbara) and i want to know more about the actual samurai.

I'd rather read non-fiction, since i already got lots of fictional works as reference. Preferably, books that deal with the figure of samurai in general rather than individuals like Musashi and Nobunaga.

I'd also like to know more about the transiton of the Sengoku Period to the Edo Period. General japanese history books are welcome as well.

The court Jester is always the smart/conniving one in fiction. Is this based on any truth?

I've heard people say that Christmas is celebrated in December because Christians hijacked a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Is this true and if so to what extent?

Working on my dissertation, and part of it would involve me re-creating Ancient Greek arrowheads and armor (though, only small pieces of armor). Does anyone have some good resources on metal working in Ancient Greece? Setups, tools, etc? I've already got Pliny's Natural History and Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World.

So as a mathematician I've always known the famous story of Évariste Galois writing down Galois theory the night before he died in a duel (although unfortunately this was apparently staged). Tonight I learned that one of Lola Montez's many lovers, Alexandre Dujarier, also got challenged to a duel by Jean-Bapiste Rosemond de Beauvallon and killed.

I find it intriguing that people were willing to fight over women (was this socially accepted?) Are there any more stories like this? Was it common/rare?

The last two games of Assassin's Creed mention this kind of thing in the form of chariot racing teams and Athens and Sparta having either blue or red everything. It made me wonder how much truth there was in the games to their respective eras and if it ever appeared before.

I know that Ivan the IV was the first Tsar of all Rus' conquered Siberia and other places, and killed his sons, but weren't such things normal in the 1500's? What made him stand out?

It says the liner was made in Oct 27th of 1972 and the metal bucket has a serial number I believe that is what it is reading 1 2202. (Edit sticker of a lion not line)

One thing I’ve noticed when looking at naval battles in the second world war is that it seemed like battleships in general already had one foot our the door due to the advantages of aircraft carriers, however, almost none of these allegedly outdated ships is that not a single one of them is considered to be a Dreadnought in the same sense of their world war one counterparts.

Why was this? Was it simply a name change back to battleships, or did dreadnoughts somehow become obsolete during the interwar period? Or am I missing something entirely and it happened for another reason? Thank you.

I'm hoping you can help me with a family legend. I had a relative who served in WWII as an Army physician in the European theater. We were very close but unfortunately he died when I was young. All he usually said about his war experience was "War is hell." I remember him telling me one war story. He said the war had just ended and he was walking somewhere when a German attack plane fired on him. He had to dive onto the ground to avoid getting shot.

As I've read more and more about WWII, I've started to wonder what really happened. I can't find any records of German aircraft attacks on or after VE Day. He may have been abridging his story for the sake of talking to a child, and I'm sure I'm not remembering everything he said. For example, when he said the end of the war, he may have meant after his area was secured and not literally VE Day.

Here are my specific questions:

• Was the Luftwaffe still running attacks at the end of the war?
• If not, how late were they able to launch one-off attacks against soft targets?
• Is it possible that this was friendly fire?

The 2 historians I've found are Hugh Kennedy and Robert Hoyland. Can anyone tell me if their writings are good or maybe someone do me one better and recommend me a good book on the topic. Thank You.

From what I understand the Russians conquered the eastern half of their country with something like 1000 men.

Considering the shear size of the territory conquered, how did they actually maintain control of it?

Did they just tell the people there, that they're Russian now and leave?

Did some stay behind with each group they found and govern them?

How did that work?

Did anyone in North America ever try to farm bison for hides and meat? It seems like it would have been advantageous to domesticate bison since they are already adapted to the climate and conditions where people were trying to raise cattle.

Was there any evidence from Karl Marx that he approved of communist movements spread throughout Europe? Additionally, did he have any criticisms regarding the rise or implementation of Communism?

I was conversing with a friend today about modern literature, and we discussed the classic fantasy books (LotR, HP, Narnia Chronicles etc) and we began to wonder who created the first prominent novel in this genre. He thinks the first real classic may be LotR, hence the dwarves and elves question, and I concurred. Can anyone shed some light on this situation, or point me to a thread that does (I currently cannot find one). Thank you very much!

Why didn’t they just rush them or flank around like they did in the revolutionary war?

I have read that people on the ground could pick up the Apollo broadcasts and could also track the craft. If they had had some cursory understanding of NASA equipment, I assume they could have spoofed communications to the Apollo crafts, enabling the most high-profile trolling or pranking events in history. Did NASA take any precautions to prevent this? Were they worried at all about this or just assume no one would do this? I presume that if the Apollo missions happened today, given the high visibility of the event and the potential for interference and notoriety that could give someone, that NASA would have to have taken some measures to prevent Joe Schmo from interrupting the live broadcasts or even from trying to communicate with the astronauts. Was this a consideration at all?

I understand the vast expertise that the division has (and always had) and the versatility it has shown over time serving many different functions and engaging in different conflicts since 1918, but I haven't been able to find why the 101st division was named as such in my research.

Because of their expertise, were they the only division to survive out of many, and another division could have taken its place as the most versatile and technically diverse division, had history been different?

We deploy SWAT teams for precise law enforcement operations, and FEMA to help with natural disasters. Is "The 101st airborne division" analogous in any way to the others in that they are often deployed to a military conflict first?