I know about the Celtic influence in the north, and the Moorish influence in the south, but I am so curious about what the Inquisition tried to make go away. Did some traditions and stories make it through?

Hi Historians!

A friend and I are curious about this siege engine, as we want to write about it in one of our bigger reports! We are generally lacking solid source material for it though, and thought that coming here might help us a little.

Our focus is on the medieval counterweight trebuchet.

• Why was the counterweight introduced to the trebuchet?
• Which countries used it the most, and where is the 'origin' of the counterweight trebuchet.
• Where was it first used, and was it as effective as it is said to be?
• Was it a 'game changer' as in, was it a big factor to winning siege battles?

I hope you can help us a little with it!

Thanks, Oliwarrior123

I'm doing a paper on the effect of the HMS Dreadnought, and how it effected the designs of naval vessels. I was hoping that there might be a site or book that would have schematics, or even just pictures and drawings of the HMS Dreadnought, some of the pre-dreadnought ships, and the later designs.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

One of the several large claims made in The Dictator's Handbook is that, when it comes to winning wars, more democratic governments tend to fight hard to win, while more autocratic ones tend to be quicker to sue for peace; this is because democratic governments have more supporters, and therefore a war effort costs each of them less individually, while the key supporters of an autocratic government have to pay a lot more individually to fight a difficult war.

I find the argument reasonable enough, but I'm interested in what historians think about it.

I was reading about Pike and shot tactics on Wikipedia and noticed near the end of the article that a plan, backed by Robert E. Lee, was put in place by the CSA to form 20 regiments of pikemen to be incorporated into their armies. However, even though the likes were produced the plan was never implemented. Is this even true? If so, why would they decide to adopt an otherwise obsolete military tactic and then what caused them to abandon their plans?

The river neither starts there (Minnesota) nor ends there (Louisiana), nor does it seem to even have the longest border with the river (looks like Illinois does?), so why is that particular state named after the river? I'm assuming just because of some kind of timing issue, but I could not find a real answer anywhere.

To clarify, military tactics didnt just change from Napoleonic and Franco-prussian wars to modern or Second World War tactics so obviously the troops of the time had to experiment. What were THOSE tactics like?

For example, in the final battle of the Isonzo River, German soldiers were applying the changing tactics along with the Austrians to defeat the Italians that were heavily entrenched in the mountains. What did they do? Were they applying small unit tactics that are used today?

What were their works? And how were their ticket sales and patronage support compared to Shakespeare? Did Shakespeare mention his rivals? What would their relationship have been like?

Christopher Marlowe maybe? Would Marlowe have been a serious competitor to Shakespeare?

Hey /r/AskHistorians,

So much talk I see of the Roman Republic is heavily focused around the city Rome itself, or macro level topics...but how did the other cities of Italy fit in? How were the local administration set up? Could they send representatives to the Senate? Were they all considered "Roman", or just tributaries? Did they have a voice in government at the macro level or just power within their own city? What was the difference between cities and colonies founded by Romans and cities that were absorbed? Were they all in the same boat politically or did the Roman cities have a larger voice in the Republic?

I know the ramifications of the Social War gave all Italians (who didn't rebel) full Roman rights, but did that lead to any changes in how the larger Roman government functioned? Did members of other cities gain the ability to get involved in things like the Senate?

For those extra generous, as you get out of Italy itself; how did the colonies fit into the picture? Did the Roman settlers who went there still retain a voice back in Rome or did leaving the homeland remove them from the political structure?

In other words, it would benefit the British to promote Absolutism in Europe since Democracy allowed a superior social order, so to speak, and Britain wanted to have a monopoly on it in the Old World. How accurate, if at all, is that?

If the question is too vague then more specifically I’m interested in 11th-14th century England, but figured most of Northern and Western Europe would be the same, and was thinking of a lower class working person who lived a stereotypical life of never venturing too far from their own village/town. As I understand it, lower class people such as the Crusaders or Merchants would have come across other races and religions, but what about those who never left their home areas?

In an episode of the second season, the monk-turned-Viking Athelstan is captured by the Saxons, and crucified for his apostasy in a manner clearly meant to evoke Jesus, complete with a crown of thorns (he gets saved by King Ecbert). Did Christians ever use crucifixion as a punishment for apostates, or was this an invention of the show?

For a history someone who is outside of this part of Europe all of these are very confusing to me. I need help with understanding but broad strokes are enough for me(at least for now).

I'm working on tattoo ideas and one in particular to represent the punic wars. All my tattoos represent stories, the punic wars being one of my favorites to tell. The problem is, I have no ideas on what to do for it. I thought of using the classic spqr tattoo or a roman standard. I've even thought of using a roman legions name and symbol but I know so little about legions and the nuances of the Roman armies that I have no where to start. I can't even find roman legions that fought in the punic wars. Any information, especially if I'm going about it all wrong, would be greatly appreciated. For all I know standards were not even used during this time.

Thanks for your time.

First of all, if the premise that Napoleon was a unique military leader is debatable, I would love to hear that discussion. I have a "pop" level knowledge of Napoleon and the time period.

Did Napoleon have better technology than his opponents? Did he have a unique way of seeing a battlefield or something? I've always heard he used artillery in a new way, but what does that mean? What did he do?

For the loss of 494 dead and 1225 wounded the British succeeded in capturing more than a 130000 Italians during this operation, in spite of being outnumbered and on the offense. While I'm aware that the British had superior armor and mobility I'm a little surprised at how easily they dominated the Italians especially considering how for example Japanese soldiers in places like Iwo Jima fought till the end and inflicted tremendous casualties on Allied troops. Was there any particular reason why Italian troops fought so poorly, inflicted such few casualties and surrendered in droves?