Columbus was commissioned by the Spanish monarchy on his voyage, thus it is understandable that a large part of the Americas was claimed by Spain. What was the Portuguese claim that made them the rulers of vast territories in South America, without any major confrontation with Spain?

The musical Hamilton seems to imply that Hamilton engaged in quite a few duels- in one of the songs, Hamilton tells his wife that he has a “meeting at dawn” and his wife just says she’s going back to bed, instead of asking who the duel is with. Was Angelica Hamilton that dense so as not to recognize he was going to his final duel, or was he that active in getting into death feuds with people?

I'm not sure on the exact extent of religion in Ancient Greece, but for the sake of this question, let's stick to people who did not believe in the Twelve Olympians. I'm aware of numerous smaller cults throughout the area that coincided. And as Ancient Greece is a rather large timespan so I'd like to know from the time period between the start of the Classical Greek Era and Roman conquest.

Was Luke Day, Daniel Shay, and the other "shaysites" listened to in a fair manner? Did the courts try to help the colonists or brush them off?

Im endlessly fascinated by Roman history and especially Late Antiquity. A major part of Rome’s fall, though not the only force, is of course the barbarians. It’s my understanding that unlike previous eras the tribes of the later Roman Empire managed to unify into a long lasting entities, fielding massive and independent armies and establishing their own kingdoms. The most well known are the Franks, the Goths and the Vandals. These groups were made up of the individual tribes that Rome used to try and keep separate and at odds with each other.

So after the Franks, the Goths, or the Vandals established their respective kingdoms did they still recognize the individual tribes that made up their confederation? Or did they begin to identify simply with the larger confederation they were apart of? Is there any record of old rivals feuding within these super confederations after they established their kingdoms or were those rivalries outdated and irrelevant at that point? Did the new kingdoms recognize the individual tribes in their political systems in any way?

Thank you for your time.

I'm really daft on this subject: From what I can tell, the Longbow was OP, with an enormous draw weight and range and the ability to pierce most armour like leather, gambeson, and mail.

But, like... what took the Longbow so long to come around? Why did the British have it, but not the French?

I'm asking this from complete daftness on this subject, because I legit cannot tell the different between an historical longbow and a 'normal' bow from before the longbow was invented. Since 'normal' bows are found literally every place where the materials were available.

What is a longbow?

Also, was the Mongolian Bow not also a version of a longbow?

Any help at all is appreciated, thank you!

Currently reading Roland Perry's book of Monash & Chauvel. It claims through German sources, that had the Australians led by Monash and the Canadians been allowed to keep advancing they could/would have destroyed a reserve German army and caused a complete rout on the western front.

Monash has again become a popular figure in Australia due to several books and TV shows. Wondering if this claim is a biased Australian one?

This makes a lot of sense if you’ve seen documentary about him.

In a video about lars andersen they explained how bowmen held arrows in there hands and they would shoot a lot faster then and that’s how Lars himself got they idea for his technique, is that true?

[deleted]

I've seen several stories of youths who got mixed up in various forms of "trouble" given the "option" of jail or the military.

I'm curious, of the over three million Americans who served in Southeast Asia, how many ended up there instead of jail? Following along, how many of those youthful offenders are on the wall in DC?

Same with the Americans too tbh. Like the 101st Airborne Division. Or the Soviets with their idk 374. Guard Infantry Battalion.

It seems that all those countries didnt care mich for an organizer, number after number, OOB.

I really like this sub for how much importance is given to factual answers backed up by cited research. It's really mind-blowing that the sub has stuck to those guidelines for so long, and it's made this place a quality place to visit.

The problem is that the vast majority of the questions may not have any answer at all. It seems strange to me that there are so many highly-upvoted questions that cannot be answered according to the guidelines.

I've read the rules and it seems like people are posting questions that violate those rules constantly. I agree that there are "no dumb questions" - but there are definitely "unanswerable questions" and those seem to get asked much more frequently than answerable ones.

So if the question can't be answered, why keep the question up?

Here's a few general examples from /new:

• How many people lived in this ancient place, where they took no census and had no writing?

• Did ancient people's of this time believe they were better than other people?

• Someone I know said something about this historical event. Are they right?

• How much of [person's success] was based on wholly arbitrary qualities I list here?

• How did two enemy nations eventually become friends?

• What was [this group's] motivations for doing what I think they might have been doing at the time?

• What were people like back [span of time covering literally thousands of years]?

I know no one reads the sidebar, let alone reading the rules linked there, but as much as I love this sub, I rarely see posts with answers. There has to be some way to decrease the amount of unanswerable posts?

Any recommendations?

Were there options for someone on ship or in the middle of winter to still have access to essential nutrients?

From my understanding, maps werent used for navigation until the early mdoern period. While I understand that the stars can be used to navigate, I've been learning more about Hannibal Barca recently, and wondered how he could have made strategic moves, like cutting off Roman armies from their supply lines, marching through that river marsh, and setting up ambushes, without maps? Of course, other examples can be used, but he seems like an ideal example. Without maps, how could he and his generals plan out where local towns and cities were, where enemy forces were located, which areas were loyal to them, and where nearby boundaries like rivers and mountains were, to perform such complex feats?

Any information would be appreciated, and I always like book recommendations for topics like this. Thanks in advance!

Hi,

I'm kind of struggling to find a good topic question for Conversos and Moriscos during the Spanish Inquisition. Are they a good topic for debate?