Compared to a lot of games and other fictions set in or inspired by Medieval Europe often we see plate armor being the 'heavy' choice especially for professional fighters, than maybe leather or chain mail for militias or more mobile fighters. Is that mainly what would be on offer if you walked into a real medieval armor shop?

I've got some telegrams (teletypes?) sent by a U.S. government agency to an overseas territory, and I'm having trouble deciphering the complete dates of these messages. Here are a few examples:

R 130318Z NOV 78

P 200405Z NOV 78

P 200355Z NOV 78

O 170245Z NOV 78

Any ideas? I thought these might be using a 24-hour clock, so that the final one would be 17:02:45, but then there's nothing indicating what day in November the message was sent. I'd appreciate any insight!

The Germans thought they were part of the superior race, how were they okay with creating an alliance with Japan, seeing as the Japanese are asian?

[deleted]

[deleted]

So this could all be based off false info but as far as I can tell there was a period from 7500 BC to 3000 BC referred to as the Neolithic Subpluvial. All information I see points to this affecting North Africa, including Egypt.

The Great Pyramids seem to have begun construction in the Early Dynastic, which goes from 3100 to 2686 BC. Meaning they were constructed when Egypt was tropical rather than desert, if I understand correctly.

If that's all the case (and here's where I feel like the question gets dumb/crackpotesque), is it possible that the pyramids were created not primarily for awe or symbolism, but rather to seal out humidity and preserve the bodies within? That they prepared the bodies, put them inside, perhaps used salt to absorb moisture, then left sealing the chambers and corridors as they exited to seal out the moisture?

Also given the climate/landscape difference, how likely is it that the pyramids were partially or perhaps mostly underground?

Hello all,

I am very interested in reading some first hand accounts of duels, whether by participants or aides/spectators. Preferably in Europe in the 17th or 18th century, but I’m not choosy. Surprisingly these seem hard to come by (or very brief rundowns) for such a dramatic event. I would assume friends and relatives would be keen to hear what happened, leaving letters and such.

Can you recommend me some sources? Or even specific accounts? The more detailed the better.

(This is perhaps more of a request than a question - I hope that’s allowed)

[deleted]

Why did the French consider the Ardennes impossible to go through?

Most monarchies are hereditary from parent to child, however the Saudi Throne has passed from the children on Ibn Saud for the last 60 years, which will end with the ascension of Mohammed Bin Salman.

Why did the Saudi Monarchy embrace this method of inheritance? I read that this was a tradition in parts of the Middle East, what was the reasoning behind this?

Thank you historians for taking the time to answer my question.

It seems odd to me that all three of Nixon's opponents were either assassinated or an assassination was attempted. Was he involved? I'm inclined to believe that he was, since his involvement in the Watergate Affair proves that he clearly wasn't the most ethical president in the history of the US.

I just finished reading The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard. In the book, it states that legend said Avery went to Madagascar and literally ruled as king of the pirates. Due to the state the island is in when Woods Rogers arrives most of the legend must be fictitious, but it still seems possible he went on to live there in some form of comfort. The only other account of what happened to Captain Avery is from The General History of the Pyrates which isn't really a reliable source and it's account seems very unlike Avery considering his previous actions. Additionally much later in the book on p. 322 it states that Edward England lived out his post pirate days on Madagascar with the remains of Avery's pirates, so did at least some of Avery's men spend their twilight there?

Bible means book, it's made of the old word and the new word, and the new word has four sections of good news (gospels). Do other texts' literal translations have similar meanings or just what are they? Why do they/don't they have trends like that?

[deleted]

I imagine they had tens of thousands of soldiers and corresponding baggage train. Many areas of North Africa andthe Arabaian peninsula and the middle East are just deserts or scrubland with not much water or vegetation. Not a ton of farmland in the homeland either to take grain on the March with them.

English is without a doubt the prefered language of communication among people who don't share a native tongue. But when did English gain this status? I'm thinking it was probably after WW2, when the US became a superpower. While it might happened earlier (maybe after the US stepped into the world stage after WW1), in my country English didn't become the prefered foreign language for school students until the 1980s, so I believe it wasn't too early.

And about the second part of my question: barring languages that were used regionally (like German in central Europe or Russian in eastern Europe), what language was the lingua franca before English? My hypothesis is French, which had been for centuries the prefered language of diplomacy and was highly regarded as such well into the 20th century. In fact, in my country it was French that was replaced by English as first foreign language at schools. However, I only know French was used in diplomacy - what about the common people who travelled abroad? Tourists, traders, scientists, students... What language did they use to communicate with foreign people before English became so important?

I'm doing research on a British Fort that was in my area in the mid to late 1700's and the primary sources reference "Negro Pioneers" used for its construction and general labor. Would these men have been property of local Provincial troops, the British Regulars/Command, or a mix of the two? What are the chances they were Free People of Color? Would they also have been garrisoning the Fort, or just for labor? Any additional context would be extremely helpful!

What the title says. Modern fiction often have the good guys/protagonist express the view that they hate war, despite being pretty good at fighting them (see Game of Thrones, Kingdom of Heaven, various King Arthurs, etc.). This is obviously to reflect the sensibilities of modern audiences.

But what was the reality? Would the real Balian of Ibelin, or a chancellor/protector of the realm, or king, or a knight in shining armor, or a random foot soldier have actually preferred peace to war?