Is it the same sort of situation that Africa is in where the conditions are too harsh to get much done? Was is simply a cultural thing or what?

Edit: I don’t mean this in a racist sense I’m just genuinely curious as to why.

Really looking for something about before the 18th century. Basically I want to learn as much as possible. Any books for relatively beginners on this subject would be great.

[deleted]

Was it just pure trial and error, or...?

Was it just propaganda or myth, or did Julius Caesar actually engage in combat while on Campaign? After he became emperor? Because it seems like the risk would far outweigh the benefit. I’m sure he was a strong and skilled soldier because of his vast experience, but all it would have taken was a lucky arrow shot or sword strike, and the leader of the biggest superpower would have been erased. His intelligence, charisma, and strategic/management skill would have been far more valuable than his combat skill.

But on the other hand, him engaging in combat would have been a big morale boost for his army, significantly increasing their chances of victory. And i’m sure he would have relished the glory.

This question can also apply to others like Ghenkis Khan, Napoleon, and Hannibal, and any “warrior king” at their peak of political power. Common sense would be for them to stay in the back, or be insulated by a core of elite soldiers, once they became heads of state.

I’m from South Florida and this area is culturally a mix between the Northeast and Cuba so I was wondering this today.

In Napoleonic warfare, the infantry was fighting mostly in line formations (or French columns). They were firing in volleys at each other at some distance, that they considered effective. Now how did it work exactly? How long could two such lines actually shoot at each other before one gives up, how many soldiers on the other side died after firing a volley? Of course, it depends on the size of the line firing and the amount of enemy, but could you give me some example of approximate numbers that you think are valid? Also I am asking about the specific scenario of two lines firing at each other, not the overall casualties of the whole battle.

I am trying to create a simulation of such scenario, but I need to grasp on some approximate numbers. For example 100 soldiers on each side in the front line of formation, one volley makes 15-30 soldiers unable to continue (killed or wounded). One side decides to give up after 30-40% of its soldiers are out of battle. Or different example could be: For every 5 soldiers firing there is 1 wounded or killed on the other side. What are your suggestions and estimates?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I couldn't find anything about the culture of exploration back then.

Also, was it purely financial by the investors, or was there a poetic aspect to it?

Specifically the period between 1340 and 1360, including the Battle of Sluys, the Battle of Crécy, Poitiers and the siege of Calais.

I know it's a stereotype but when and how did it start? Is it primarily a Western viewpoint? What is the relationship between these cultures and gender bending practices like crossdressing in the early and premodern period?

European explorers visited tons of new places with different languages very isolated (linguistically) from European languages. How did they setup communications with new peoples? How long would it take to effectively communicate? Did they bring expert language learners or try to pick up translators as they went? Was there a standard practice for quickly learning languages, since people didn't have Rosetta Stone or as much formal education?

[deleted]