Are there any frontiers in history similar to the American Wild West with outlaws and gangs? Where places like Russia’s siberian frontier like this?

Sorry if this is a silly question, I was just wondering if there were notes or journals showing that not all the slave owners worked them to dust.

Are there any credible sources on medieval farming statistics. I'm not looking for how they farmed but how much and what percentages of crops.

Can include:

      Area of farmland total

      Average area of land owned by farmer

      How much farmland was needed per person/family (anyone commenting about hides might want to do the maths and realise that the area being farmed would be wrong using hides)

      How much of certain crops was needed as in was it 1% fruit or more

E.g. How much farmland was in England at any point in the middle ages and what were they farming (20% wheat or only 10% sorta thing)

Thanks in advance and please tell me if my question is breaking any rules this is my first (of many) question. Also I have no idea how to format

I'm looking for primary sources from China that deal with Buddhism from the end of the Han dynasty through the Tang dynasty. I'm a teacher looking to add to a DBQ asking students to analyze responses to the spread of Buddhism in China. Can anyone help me locate some such resources?

Did any of the knights (mounted or dismounted) wear full plate armour? Or was it semi-plate, with chainmail covering the rest?

How did Italy manage to be neutral in the first year of WW1 and then suddenly into the middle of it?

For a blacksmith, it seems like a plate cuirass would use about the same amount of raw metal and be both easier and faster to make than a mail hauberk. A plate cuirass would also undoubtedly provide much more protection for your vitals from pretty much any weapons you'd encounter in a fight. Lastly, a smartly designed cuirass should not significantly inhibit the movement of its wearer, so any movement advantage of wearing just mail seems like it would be negligible to me.

So I'm curious as to why basically no one in Europe, even among the wealthy classes, are wearing plate armor on their chest for about a thousand years after the fall of the western roman empire?

[deleted]

I am an Indian and I know an overlay of many historical events as they were taught in school. But I want to go deep(but not so deep that I dont understand what's going on). So which books do you'll recommend for a person like me. And please only recommend books, no youtube videos or articles. Thank You.

There are alot of countries to go through and i've been having a hard time finding any exceptions.

I'm vaguely aware that there was a small community of African Americans living in Paris after World War 1 but my knowledge on the topic ends there. could you recommend any further reading on any of these topics? I'm curious to learn more. Thank you very much in advance for any time you take to answer!

People in Indonesia had complex societies, they were good seafarers, and they knew about Australia, why didn't they try to settle it?.

I have heard that Australia is mostly dessert suited only for nomadic life back them, and even today is mostly uninhabited, but the East and West coasts, as well as Tasmania, have plenty of land suited for agriculture and a ton of resources that would eventually motivate trade, at least those places should have been visited by traders, and I would expect that overtime small ports and cities would form, but apparently that didn't happen, and I just can't see why.

I should preface this question by saying that as far as I understand it, the retreat decision was absolutely the correct one based on the information Scheer had available to him at the time. He needed to preserve the High Seas Fleet above all else, the purpose of his sortie had been to destroy the isolated British battlecruiser squadron, and that purpose had failed the minute the Grand Fleet appeared on the horizon with a significant numerical advantage in dreadnoughts.

Set against that, we have the benefit of a century's worth of historical research on both sides, on the basis of which more accurate assessments can be made. Discussions of Jutland have habitually focused on the failings of the Royal Navy: terrible communication and signalling problems, poor fire control, defective shells, open hatches and cordite lying around on the decks. Were all these weaknesses sufficiently serious as to leave the Grand Fleet in practice inferior to its German counterpart in combat strength? Or was the disparity in battleship numbers and broadside weight still overriding?

The year is 1492 and 3 ships are sailing out into literally uncharted waters. They have no way of measuring longitude, nothing but wind and sails to control speed/bearings, and only the most rudimentary ship-to-ship communication means.

If you were Columbus at that time, how on earth would you keep your convoy together?

• did they just try to stick to a line of latitude as best they could calculate and hope for the best?
• did they go out of sight of each other for long periods at a time?
• were they ever all 3 near enough each other for messages/crew/supplies to be exchanged?

I just cant wrap my head around this. The smallest storm could blow them off course and separate the convoy and just how would they ever meet up again out in the open sea like that? How could they know if one ship stalled behind or had moved ahead if it had been out of sight for any amount of time? Were they always able to keep in sight of each other?

It seems that on October 12 all 3 ships spotted land and went ashore. So they conveniently were all 3 together? I've heard of trading convoys arriving a few days apart even though they all left at the same time and I just can't understand how on this epic voyage his 3 ships could have traveled so close together as to all 3 arrive together.

Hi all, I was curious about the international community's varying reactions to the British and German naval "blockades" in both ww1 and 2. The German unrestricted submarine warfare aimed at the British empire is often cited as the main reason for the US joining the Entente, while in ww2 it sparked an undeclared war between Germany and the US. Yet at the same time in both of these cases, the UK was blockading Germany, stopping and searching ships from neutral nations. It wasn't long before nobody tried to ship anything to Germany anymore. The threat of sinking by the Royal Navy was enough to generally uphold the blockade. So why is Germany using the same threat - don't ship to these guys, or we'll sink you - considered a much greater nuisance by the international community (US, Brazil to name a couple)? The most plausible things I can find are the "rule" that blockades must be "effective" to be considered legal, which is arbitrary and biased towards surface ships to say the least, or the relative economic dependence on Britain vis-a-vis Germany by these countries. Forgive my ignorance, I hope to learn from you guys.

[deleted]

Hey there, first time poster on this Sub.

I've been looking for some entertaining books to read from the ancient Greece times. More specific about the times around ~500BCE and ~300BCE, somewhat later or earlier doesn't really matter as long as its about the Greek civilization.

For example I really enjoy reading about the Persian wars, the conflicts between Athens and Sparta and other relevant wars/conflicts around the peloponnesian.

It doesn't necessarily have to be writers and philosophers in this era that wrote about these times and conflicts.

I apologise for my English as it isn't my native language however if there are any uncertainties feel free to leave a question.

All suggestions are appreciated!

I was reading the question about the medieval central village being attacked, and someone was talking about medieval/early modern period justice. That got me to thinking, was one day considered in the medieval period and the next considered in the early modern periods? If so, when and why was this day chosen? Who defined it, and is it generally agreed upon or is it up for debate?

What actually is the definition of the two ages?