It seems strange to me that a peoples who fought primarily with shields and spears would have no armor for their legs and arms. They should at least have some leather instead of bare skin, right?

Hi Historians,

I am interested in this topic and how this occurred but I have not found many resources on this topic. I did see however, a map dividing modern day "Republic of Macedonia" and surrounding neighbours with all the land given to its neighbours, such as Bulgaria, Albania, Greece etc. How did this occur and is there much information on it? Thanks in advance! DefChestan :)

I understand that motherland/fatherland means "homeland", but why do different countries separate between the two? The USSR used "Motherland" and Germany "Fatherland". I know Norway uses "Fatherland" as well as the Swiss in their national anthem. Why the distinction? Is it because of Germanic/Slavic culture or another historical reason?

I have often heard that most sailors during the Napoleonic Wars could in fact not swim. However, i have read from various sources that French (in particular) Light Infantry, such as the Voltigeurs on several occasions swam across rivers under fire from the enemy. If Infantrymen could swim then surely a large portion of sailors should've been able to swim as well?

Edit: Example from a source originally published in 1828:

“the French arrived [at Tordesillas], 60 ... headed by Cpt Guingret, a daring man, formed a small raft to hold their arms and clothes, and plunged into the water, holding their swords with their teeth, swimming and pushing their raft before them. Under protection of a cannonande they crossed this great river, though it was in full and strong water, and the weather very cold, and having reached the other side, naked as they were, stormed the tower: the Brunswick regiment then abandoned the wood, and the gallant Frenchmen remained masters of the bridge." (Napier - "History of the War ..." Vol IV, p 138)

Hello, I am studying Area Studies which is an interdisciplinary approach on the history, linguistics and cultures of different areas in the world. In one introductionary class a few years back my history professor warned us of using Teleology in historical science. I'm preparing to start my final thesis with said professor. However, the concept of Teleology in historical science is still amiss to me. Why is it considered bad? How exactly would it look like when used? How do I avoid it?

Thank you

[deleted]

I ask because in my eyes they're effectively the last vestiges of an organized religion in an officially atheist state. How did the various Buddhist (and other religious) orders fare during the various conflicts in contemporary China? How is it we still have groups like the Shaolin order but Buddhist monks (who I assume are of the same sect/order) are persecuted in places like Tibet?

Hi everyone, not sure if this has been answered here but I am having trouble understanding the concept of Feudalism. Currently at university and we are discussing the historical role of policing in the past from the Ancient ages right through to the 18th century where Capitalism and Democracy came to a fore. My lecturer assumed or expected that we knew how Feudalism operated back then and didn't go into much detail. From the research I've done it seems that the state was run by the church and all legal/policing procedures were dealt without any real formal proceedings and precedent wasn't taken into account when decisions were made. My question is, who were the policing force in these times? Was there an army/police force? How was evidence evaluated by the monarch? How was corruption dealt with (rouge soldiers/treason?

In a recent podcast with Sam Harris, Niall Ferguson argues that historians should make counterfactuals explicit and that all or most historical arguments concerning causation are also reliant on counterfactuals. I find this a little silly, to say the least. I have seen some things posted here on counterfactuals and Niall Ferguson. I was just wondering how the historians here feel about the above specific statement??

Magnus the Good and Sweyn II Estridsson seems to have fought each other for a long time. Why would the former give Denmark to the later ?

I noticed that most weapon manufactured before at least the 19th century lacks a name, and then rifles with names such as Charleville, Baker, Brown Bess, etc (which i guess is probably from a private company) emerged and being used by the military. What's with this change? What shifted the production of weapons from the central government to private companies? And how did those weapons got a name even though it's produced by the government, while many (mostly Eastern, the Ottomans for example) countries that produced their rifles themselves doesn't give a name to their weapons?

Was it in German, Spanish, English? I'm just generally curious as to what the decoding process was like.