When Company of Heroes 2 came out, there was controversy for its lack of historical accuracy of the Russian army during WW2 with portrayals of actions such as shooting their own soldiers if they retreated (there is a mission where there is Order 227 in effect), burning houses using scorched earth tactics with civilians inside, telling their soldiers to continue to push through in Stalingrad during Operation Barbossa even if it meant going straight through the line of fire of MG42 nests or pushing through without a weapon, abondoning their own soldiers to avoid the Germans from advancing, and so on.

This caused a lot of controversy among Russian players as they felt that it portayed the Russians in a stereotypical manner and not accurate to the historical context of WW2 from the Russians' side.

So how accurate is this portrayal? Were there other war crimes that were potentially committed by the Red Army?

So in all the communist revolutions I've heard about, most of them seem to end in the execution of thousands of people, landlords, enemies of the party and so fourth.

I know this happened in Russia, China, Guatemala, and Vietnam (to a smaller extent i think, according to Ken Burns amazing documentary about it).

Obviously if there was a civil war many people would die, but i'm talking about after the Communist party had already taken over.

Are there instances of a peaceful transfer of power to a communist government? If there isn't, why not?

Thank you!

EDIT: Sorry i meant the Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia, not Guatemala!

Asking due to some research I'm doing for authenticity in a project of mine. As I understood it, the vast majority of french trade and occupation in general primarily took place in the early 1700's and diminished in the later half after the French and Indian war. Since the setting of this film takes place significantly later than these events, I guess I'm wondering what level of historical accuracy the french party depicted have, if at all. Appreciate the help.

Why did stones need to be broken up? Why do they seem to be using such an inefficient method, with a small hammer? Could someone explain the real-world purposes of this job?

Much is said about Harold rushing to meet William at Hastings, and in hindsight should have waited in London to bring a fuller force down. In my understanding he spent around 10-14 days in London after leaving York some 5 days after Stamford Bridge. Surely this was ample time for the Northumbrian Earls and their huscarls to join him? Could this be seen as trecherous, why else would they take so long?

I understand that they arrived after the battle, and played a role in the defence of London in Williams assault from the south, before essentially deserting, after william had ridden west all around the thames, laying waste to the south, before turning north and approaching London from the north. Again, can this be viewed as trecherous? That William kept them in place as the Northern Earls post conquest, would lead me to believe so....

I remember reading an answer about a noble/princess from history who successfully rejected her suitors by defeating each one in a duel and ultimately taking a wife[sic]/lover for herself. The story came from an Asian nation as well as I can remember. I've already dug through the FAQ and did every intuitive search I could think of via Reddit's search function.

Seems that this is the popular representation of it. Is there much evidence that this is the case?

When I read about early firearms (17th, 18th, even early 19th century), they don’t seem that useful or game changing. They had poor accuracy, limited range and could only be fired a few times a minute at most. It almost seems like bow and arrow would be superior, especially the kind devastating armies like the Mongols used.

Yet when gunpowder armies met traditional armies, the result was usually slaughter. So how much better were early firearms than traditional weapons such as bows, swords or spears?

Maybe a stupid question, but history has provided us with a lot of information regarding the suffering of Jews, homosexuals, and dissenters in Nazi Germany, but how was life for those not being killed/persecuted? Thanks in advance!

[deleted]

The majority of today's militaries tend to focus a significant amount of time and energy on attempting to maintain fitness through various exercise and athleticism.

Seeing as how much of war was fought up close, with handheld weapons, your physical strength and endurance (along with skill) would be your greatest asset in surviving battle.

My question is how much knowledge did ancient fighting forces (let's say pre-gunpowder). I know there are many throughout history, so just any prominent examples if you have any.

I know ancient greece placed high value upon wrestling which would be an invaluable asset in combat prowess, but elsewhere was it just a combination of restricted diet, little leisure time, walking a lot and weapons training that constituted fitness? Or is there more?

Thank you.

Edit: 1950s*

How old is the Avesta and Zoroastrianism? Was Hinduism a branch of from this when the indo-aryans migrated into India? Is the Avesta prior to the Vedas and did the indo-aryans take their religion from the ancient iranians? And how old is Judaism, and did the Jews take their ideas from these first monotheists?

I heard someone say Aristotle thought the mind was in the stomach. But can't find anything online

Thanks!

Why is written history better source material compared to oral history? And why do some society’s decide to pass down knowledge and history through one way or another.

Take for example, Abubakari II’s journey across the Atlantic ocean. It is a debated topic because of the limited amount of physical evidence, but also because the accounts are transcripts from oral traditions. However the Mali empire and the Manding language would have had access to written scripts because of Islam. Are there other examples throughout the world of a literate people purposefully favoring oral over written traditions?

During antiquity, javelins and war darts were widely used, with Numidian cavalry, Roman legionaries and greek/thracian pelasts among the soldiers using them. When we approach the Early Middle Ages, I have personally seen almost no mention of javelins used by any soldiers (excluding indigenous warriors) despite the weapon's presumably lower skill requirement compared to bows, it's lethality, and effect versus armor and shields. Other mentions of javelins during the Medieval period I have found are the Iberian Jinetes and other regional light troops, plus use in Eastern Europe. Spears were still thrown, but the use of javelins/war darts declined. Why?

To add: Javelins seem like an effective sidearm and cheap weapon to arm peasants with. Did the crossbow replace it or did warfare evolve in a way making it no longer practical?

I find it hard to understand how a man who conquered almost all of the lands in the bible is never mentioned in it.