I know that the Janissaries were converted former Christians, and probably many other analogues throughout Turkic, Arabic, Persian, West African and so on (Mameluke, Ghilman(?), etc.). Also that many Islamic Empires had Christian vassals like Muscovy to Golden Horde (maybe not them?), and some Balkan subjects under the Ottomans.

• I'm really curious about whether Christians and other Peoples of the Book can fight for an Islamic leader under a non-forced circumstance?
• What if I'm a devout Orthodox Greco-Syrian in the living in Damascus in the 12th-13th centuries, and I'm widely known as the best fighter and commanderin the region? Could I openly fight for the Sultan or Emir and my loyalty is never questioned?

Edit: By resistance, I mean a underground movement of say civilians that are coordinating sabotage against the Japanese. This happened in Denmark if I remember correctly, as certain groups would explode train tracks and bridges to help slow the Nazi war effort.

There were also many civilians that helped hide Jews or others that were being persecuted by the Nazis. Etc etc.

The governess in question is a young unmarried middle class woman. What would the people she engages with call her? Miss or Mistress?

Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, a Mesoamerican historian and archeologist in the 1800s, believed that the Mayan civilization might have originated with the lost continent of Atlantis. Why did he believe this? What evidence did he have to support this claim, especially considering that no evidence of Atlantis and it's culture actually exists?

Given the fanaticism of the European Fascists and the Japanese Racialists, one would've expected plans like Werwolf to gain more steam than they did. Why did the terrorists that the Allies feared never come to pass?

I was

The levee en mass is considered to have been pioneered in Revolutionary France, and is considered the first instance of modern military conscription.

However, didn't areas in Europe under feudalism also essentially give the King/Noble the ability to force their people into a term of service in the army? And similarly didn't Greek/Roman empires at different times expect all citizens to fight for their state?

Would it be more correct to say that the levee en mass reintroduced the concept of mass conscription, or am I missing something that makes it truly different from previous styles of conscription?

Particularly from the end of the viking age (1100) to the start of the mongol invasions on the east (1200).

A little backstory. I recently got interest into medieval age (or post-classical age according to Wikipedia as a general term) after recently playing hours of video games such as Crusader Kings II, Civilization V, Age of Empires II, Medieval 2: TW, Stronghold (Crusader), and Mount & Blade: Warband. Also watched a few feature films such as Kingdom of Heaven. These rapid burst of media sparked an interest for medieval warfare and had me reading around Wikipedia and forums/boards outside of reddit. Everyone and everything has conflicting narratives and discussions on how medieval armies were composed and it just got me more confused as before.

(I don't know the percentage of video-gamers in this subreddit, forgive me). A common trend in video games is to have specialized or definitive type of troops: spearmen (spear and shield), pikemen (long spears with no shield) swordsmen (sword and shield), archers, maces, light and heavy cavalry, mounted archers, and the list goes on. Another thing is that weaker troops are designated as "peasants" and are cheap and can be easily amassed, while the stronger troops as "nobles/veterans" and costs more in exchange of being stronger. It is also possible to have troops unique to a selected culture or faction such as mamluks and camels for Arabs/Muslims, berserkers for Scandinavian, and Longbows for English.

Now to my question, what is the general or typical composition and organization of medieval armies particularly of the crusaders and Muslims during the years 1100-1200? I picked the year range of 1100-1200 as it is between two very prominent conquest or invasion: Vikings and Mongols. It also contains the first four crusades, which are, arguably, the major ones of them all.

What were the trends? What percentage of soldiers would have swords, axes, maces, spears, shields, javelins, pikes, bows, crossbows, armor, horses, etc.? What is the probability that a randomly chosen soldier will just be a conscripted peasant with minimal training or a highly-trained soldier? How was the open-field battles? Were there advanced tactics or just straight up volley with arrows, charge with horses, and advance with infantry? Is the 1100-1200 to big of a range that warfare was too different in 1100 to 1200?

I know that medieval warfare is too broad to and answered at once, but it is just too fascinating to dwell into!

Thank you! :)

I recently watched a video about cooking an 18th-century dessert featured in Hanna Glass’s cookbook from that period, and the recipe calls for orange juice, from oranges specifically from Seville, Spain. How would someone living in colonial North America acquire such oranges? Wouldn’t they spoil on the long sea journey?

As a more general statement: to what extent did people living in Thirteen Colonies and early United States have access to perishable items like exotic fruits or vegetables? How would they be treated/packaged/transported to prevent spoilage?

I have read that there were more than 500+ princely states during the independance of India and Pakistan.

I have the following questions:

1. How did the British manage SO MANY different entities without fainting? It must have caused the top person in charge, like the Prime Minister extreme mental anguish trying to micro-manage or even simply manage all these. Even thinking of it even if played like Civilization games is making me faint.

2. What laws (civil, criminal, otherwise) applied to these Princely States?

3. Why didn't the Princely States and their Princes, protest or fight for their sovereignty and instead joined India? Why didn't the British or the international community rush to help them?

4. Why did the Princely States exist in the first place? Why weren't they absorbed by the previous Mughals, the French, Portuguese or the British?

I am from South Asia and I am totally unfamiliar with American history. I recently read about the Donner Party and I have the following questions:

How can it be that even in 1846, huge swathes of land undiscovered, so much that people got lost and it was considered an expedition to cross those lands?

The Donner Party were the one on an expedition to uncharted territory and California sent rescue teams. That means that California had a sizeable settlement and institutions during the 1840s. It seems strange that lots of ground in the middle are uncharted, yet lands on the other end of the country is well settled. If California was already a city before the middle parts of USA, how did the government maintain California with uncharted territory and even territory of other countries (French, Spanish) in the middle?

EDIT: What is the best, comprehensive and encyclopedic article of 1. Colonial pioneers of the world and 2. Colonial pioneers in North America?

[deleted]

[deleted]