Now we have seen plenty of movies depicting that swords can slice through plates armours or any iron/steel armour with ease - is that even possible?

I am particularly skeptical on the power of slashes, I feel like your sword has to be sharp as fuck to able to slice through metal, that and you have to be strong enough to deliver such blow.

Same goes for axes and halberds alike, is the damage comes mostly from the weight of the weapons and the strength of the user - rather than the blades?

Edit: thanks everyone for their answers!

The definition of anarchism I would use for this question can be very broad (in more recent times this would mean both anarcho-communism and capitalism) and could mean anything that actively encourages radical freedom, either in religious, economical (including classes) terms or when it comes to individual rights, also the abolishment of authorities, although I would include minarchist ideas. However, accidental anomie like power vacuums doesn't count. I also have two follow-up questions.

1. If there were such movements, did they take part in colonization of the non-European world to fulfill their visions?

2. Were the pre-Roman philosophical thoughts of anarchism known in the specified time frame or only rediscovered later? If the former applies, what was thought of them?

I'm aware of elementary things. That they often purchased them from people like the Crimean Tatars, that Slavs were high in demand, et cetera. What did they usually do with these slaves and what qualities were considered best in a potential slave?

How about the janissaries? Why didn't they just raise local Turks to be janissaries?

^ I'm super confused hahaha.

I was thinking, was classical music viewed as the pop music of its time? Did young people have favourite composers/performers like Paganini and others, or were there different styles of music which were more popular (e.g. folk tunes)

I just recently rewatched Saving Private Ryan which I love so much as a film. But after seeing it multiple times, the biggest problem I’ve always had with it is how the high ranking officers are wearing identifying insignias of their rank on their helmets under serious combat behind enemy lines.

Does anyone know if this is historically accurate? It just seems like a captain, major, or sergeant would be putting a target literally on their heads by wearing a helmet with a painted rank on it.

Thanks for any info that can be given.

I was reading a bit about the Chinese Boxer rebellion and noticed that the U.S participated in taking down the rebellion. I was wondering how large of an involvement the U.S had in the war in comparison to Britain, or Japan. Also, what was the general U.S citizen's sentiment towards the war?

I get that the Arisaka and Mosin-Nagant were also bolt action, so it's not like repeating clip-fed rifles were the world standard by any means. It's just that given that Britain was a powerful empire at the time, you'd think that their firearms technology would be sort of top of the line you know?

Also, I'm not shitting on the Lee-Enfield by any stretch. I get that it was a very effective weapon and I respect it. Am I overestimating the difference in effectiveness between a repeating rifle and a bolt action rifle?

I also understand that they had Browning machine guns, Brens, and other fully automatic guns and that they still fired off plenty of lead. I'm asking specifically about why their main infantry rifle seems to have been a little behind tech wise.

​

EDIT: Forgot to mention in the title, but obviously I'm talking about World War II here.

Could’ve they done anything differently to win?

What do we know about the diet and fitness training of soldiers in the Roman Empire? How “fit” would professional soldiers have been 2000 years ago, both in the Roman Army and in the armies of its neighbours?

For example, I’ve read that gladiators often fattened up before fights to help insulate themselves against dangerous cuts. Was that also common practice for professional soldiers, or did they not need to worry about that because they had better armour? I’ve also heard that the Roman army trained with weighted weapons to build strength; did they train for cardio as well or was that just a side effect of wearing armour and long marches? Would soldiers have been expected to be able to run long distances, or is distance running a more modern thing?

In some historical fiction I’ve read/watched, “barbarian” tribes are described or shown to be bigger and stronger than Roman soldiers. Was that actually true in some cases, or is it based on exaggeration in ancient sources? If it was true, was it due to diet (access to different foods, maybe)?

In summary, did anyone in the ancient world actually have abs like the Spartans in 300?

If the Ottoman fleet was blockaded in the Dardanelles, how does that severely crimp their ability to ferry troops and supplies to the Balkans? I am just assuming that the ships can still reach Europe across the straits.

Is that one of the reasons for their demise.

I recently watched the movie Apocalypto and found it extremely interesting and was wondering if the movie was an accurate representation in what happened in the past? Also what other interesting facts could you tell me about the mayans?

The Ottoman Empire was (as I understand) a major threat to most, European powers at the time, and a huge concern for Hungary and Austria, but were stopped around Vienna numerous times What would have happened if the Ottomans managed to win that war? Would the Ottoman Empire be able to expand further into Europe, and if they did, where would the most likely targets be? And if this is even a possible question to answer, what effect might it have had on history as we know it?

As far as I know, there are several problems with the census described in the Gospel of Luke, including that no empire-wide census occurred near the time of Jesus’s birth and that Roman censuses never required people to return to their ancestral birth places. If this is correct, why did seemingly no early Christians question these glaring problems?