In a typical film/tv show (and many books), the local Lord/Sheriff/King etc, tends to have lots of men in chainmail/swords just hanging around, and often acting as a local police force, as well as protection of the lord/his assets.

In reality, how many people would be permanently retained as a guard in this manner? Would they also have other duties? What sort of equipment would they likely have?

Obviously this varies by region, era, and wealth of the individuals concerned. Answer by the time period/region that you are aware of answers for - knowledge of how it varies would be very interesting as well. This questions is in respect to medieval Europe, as that is the sort of fiction I am thinking of.

I just finished reading The Path Between The Seas by David McCullough. McCullough explains how Teddy Roosevelt and other Americans pushing for the canal were motivated in large part by the prospect of achieving naval supremacy. Alfred Thayer Mahan's Influence of Sea Power upon History had been published not long before and Teddy Roosevelt seems to have taken it to heart. The canal ultimately opened right around the start of WWI which came along with the first military use of airplanes.

So while it is probably difficult to understate the importance of the canal for commerce, is it fair to suggest that aviation rendered the canal less important from a strategic point of view? Or at least less important than Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be? I imagine it was very important for moving troops and supplies between theaters in WWII, but how important was the canal to US military strategy during the cold war and beyond?

Those two are really similar in design and way of use, so did Carolingian sword originate from roman Gladius?

Were the Americans able to direct naval gun fire PRECISELY at Japanese defensive positions on volcano Suribachi? Because in the movie Flag of Our Fathers, it appears to me they are just shooting at the mountain not knowing where to precisely aim at.
(I asked this question before on Yahoo Answers but I didn't get a reply there).

[deleted]

I mean, I know there are other emperors that are "household names" like Nero or Augustus, but really Caesar stands out from all of them.

I get that he was a brilliant man that ruled in an interesting time, and that his death was a sensational story. And I know that his writing has survived so we get insight into the man himself, but is this enough to explain why he is by far the most famous roman emperor?

What is your opinions?

I have some past events to consider,

Pearl Harbour

Bombing of Hiroshima

Battle of Berlin

Im trying to learn more history and im curious about what books or other sources are the most reliable and interesting, particulary world history and European history

I’ve heard that the Russian Winter plays an important role in the war on series such as WWII In Colour and a great documentary called the world at war. However I’ve also heard people diminish the role of the Russian winter and suggest the Soviet Union was gaining momentum regardless and ways poised to push the German army back. I’m interested in the subject so I’d like to know people interpretation of these events in 1941.

I was reading about the Portuguese in India when I came across Alfonso de Albuquerque. The name Albuquerque cannot be that common, so is there a link somehow between Alfonso de Albuquerque and the dukes of Alburquerque in Spain?

From what I understand the US had more or less a command economy for war production during WWII. There are lots of questions here, but I guess I’m curious about the way a small to medium size company would experience these changes.

First of all there is the practical question of how production was managed. From what I understand there were quotas for various types of products. So how did the war production board find all the manufacturers of eg lathes in the US and define the types and numbers of products that had to be made?

Then, I wonder about what the reaction was in terms of the government imposing control over production. I imagine this differed a great deal between large companies such as the auto manufacturers and smaller companies that generally would have had a greater amount of autonomy. Did anyone rebel against orders from the government, and if so what was the result?

The final question is about what the after effects were. There is of course the famous Eisenhower speech about the military industrial complex, but what about companies that weren’t directly in the MIC per se, ones that made products used by the military but not military in nature, such as tools? Was there a change in how such businesses operated from pre-war to post-war? Did any collapse as a result of falling demand? Or did any fail to adapt to the peacetime economy? Was there any connection between the war and the trend of consolidation and deindustrialization starting in the 60s?

Any input on any of these questions is welcome. Thanks!

really interested in this and theres no answers on the internet.

I am currently reading Osman’s Dream by Caroline Finley. In numerous places, it says how the dynasty was seeking legitimacy through myths and conquest, etc, implying that it was lacking. Meanwhile, Crimea seems to possess this through right of descent from Genghis Khan, and even the Mughals are said to have it from Timur. Given that the Ottoman state predated( and outlasted) Timur, and had achieved of itself considerable feats, I wonder why they in themselves couldn’t be the source of legitimacy? Why couldn’t descent from Osman be as prestigious as descent from Genghis Khan or Timur?

EDIT: Sorry I didn’t realize where exactly the dividing line was(forgive my Australian ignorance). If I defined North and South America at the US/Mexican border, why has the US and Canada seemingly benefitted a lot more than the majority of countries below the southwestern border?

At least here in Holland, the oldest of the big companies are almost all breweries (Douwe Egberts, Grolsch, Amstel, Bavaria). How do these companies survive for so long?

I read a newspaper article from the week of Reagan's attempted assassination reporting that some Berkeley students were excited and somewhat detached from the serious matter of a presidential death. The article continues by suggesting this is a display of both the growing insensitivity to violence and disrespect for the government found in young people. Is this kind of morbid celebration unique to the post-80's world, or are there any examples of similar celebrations occurring following previous assassinations, primarily that of President Kennedy?

So every country has surnames that refer to places of origins or professions. The Italian surname "Capuano," for instance, means basically "of Capua," while the surname "Agricola" refers to farmers. Yet there are certainly many people with those last names running around today who are neither from Capua nor come from a family of farmers.

But is there a historical moment where these kinds of names lose their concrete significance? If you see someone with a "Buranello" surname crop up in a historical text from the 17th century, is it reasonable to assume that that person was indeed born in Burano? What if the document is from the 18th century? The 19th? The 20th?

If it helps to clarify where this question is coming from, I was looking at a musical manuscript held in Cassino Italy that was dedicated "per uso della Signora Donna Maria Capuano, Dilettante" and compiled around 1800. I have no other information about who this woman was, and am wondering if it's reasonable to assume that she was part of a Capuan family. Or if the surname / place of origin relation was already tenuous at this time.