I'm interested in how warfare evolved from ancient times to the modern day - tactics, equipment, training, etc. Are there any good books on the subject?

Full disclosure, I don't know what term to use to describe the people who live in the arctic regions of America and Greenland, I always thought Eskimo was a politically incorrect Colonialist term and you were meant to say Inuit but Wikipedia makes mention of 'Paleo-Eskimo people' so I don't really know.

Anyway, I was just curious about how the Norse settlers in Greenland interacted with the Inuits, or Eskimos, were the Inuits already there when the Norse set up shop? Was this an early preamble of European Colonialism and exploitation in America? Or did the Norse not meet Inuits initially at all? Is there much evidence of Warfare, Trade and/or cultural intermixing and technological exchange? Did the Inuits contribute to ultimate downfall of the Norse settlements in a major way? Were their ways of life as irreconcilably different as they seem at first glance? Thank you to anyone who responds, I find this little vignette of history with Medieval Europeans trying to make a living in one of the most inhospitable and remote places possible, and the potential interactions they might have with people very different from them, incredibly fascinating!

Are there any records from the time around 800-1100 A.C showing that there were vikings who didn’t really believe in their own religion but rather saw it as symbolism and a moral guideline? Or did all vikings literarily believe in Thor and Asgard etc?

So during the age of piracy did anyone actually burry their loot or was that just a story? I'm not familiar with how banks worked back then, would pirates feasibly be able to use them? Also, how were they able to sell off the larger goods they stole like spices and shit?

Right after WW2 many people where still dying, why was this?

While I was in the bus today I wondered since when are street ads a thing. I can imagine that there might have been some banners in the fachade of the building or even in the street but close to the actual shop. But were they like our kind of ads? Meaning: did they have catchy sentence, were they placed all over the place, did the shop owners actually care to have them, etc.? Thanks.

While most buildings from that era are literally in ruins, some have survived remarkably well. So why is the Circus Maximus so completely gone when it was such a popular place? Or is it gone because it was such a popular place?

(Remembered from family history)

Dad's destroyer sailed into Hiroshima, first American ship in harbor I believe. (#69 I think. Haha.) Nearly every man on that ship died of mesothelioma ~40 years later. Lung cancer from asbestos, which is on point. Dad said sheets of it were lashed around the pipes with duct tape and it would rain dust on them when a shell hit close by.

Same dad told me Zeros exploded like matchsticks from a close hit because they were made of balsa wood. Same dad told me he never really saw action. I think he was a bit of a liar and didn't want to glorify war to his young grandson. :)

This is what I remember from family history. Can anyone track this? I remember looking at his ship's engagements for a history project in the late 80's and it seemed that ship was in every Pacific naval engagement I had ever heard of.

I lack the know-how and resources to investigate. Was any of this true? Am I misremembering? I can find the ship number (69) and I'm pretty sure it was a destroyer. He was maybe a second or third class torpedo-man?

And despite the fact that Hitler’s army was more technologically advanced so they should have reached Moscow far earlier.

I saw a picture of some armor today on reddit. After some quick googling, I read that chainmail may have been invented as early as 800 B.C. Has armor always been manufactured in a "factory" like setting for the multitude of armies throughout history?

To add to the question above, considering the fate of the British battlecruisers at Jutland, why did HMS Hood enjoy such a favourable reputation, particularly vis-a-vis the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, and considering it was never tested in battle?

I'm about to finish the book and I still do not understand what Jünger means when he calls some of his soldiers "territorials"(including his orderly Vinke), they all have German names, so I'm not sure what he means by this phrase. Can anyone enlighten me?

Were there notable regional differences in where US soldiers fought during WWII (controlling for branch of service)? For example, would a naval officer from Connecticut be more likely to serve in the European theatre than the Pacific? Same with an Oregonian in the Pacific? Were Easterners more likely to fight in Europe, and the same for Westerners in the Pacific?

My understanding is that different parts of the US focused more heavily (i.e. more news stories, more analysis/opinion) on different places during the war. So, the Pacific Northwest and California were more interested in the Pacific theatre relative to the rest of the country. (I acknowledge this may be inaccurate). But, were servicemen from the PNW more likely to actually serve in the Pacific Theatre, i.e. did the regional focus of their home states overlap with the location of their actual wartime experiences? Very longwinded Q, I know. And I know this may vary dramatically by service branch, so again, a bit wordy and confusing, but I hope I'm clear enough.

Returning to my perhaps faulty premise; has anyone done a study of how the war was reported on in different regions of the US? Was a Wisconsin farming family reading news about one area of conflict more or less so than, say, shopkeepers in Savannah, GA? Thanks!