The Hakka's support of the Taiping Kingdom got them persecuted by the Qing troops, who didn't tolerate any insurgencies. But how many did they kill in this ethnic persecution campaign?

Just a few years later the Punti clan killed about 1 million Hakka, their second genocide in two decades. But I can't find the data about the mass killings by the Qing.

So I was playing Mount and Blade: Viking Conquest, which is set around the time of the Great Heathen Army. In the game, javelins and throwing spears are ubiquitous, and that is historically accurate, as far as I know. Before the "Viking Era", the Roman army was known for their use of the pilum. Throwing spears are everywhere in the Greek myths that I have read.

So why did throwing weapon seemingly cease to be an important factor in European warfare after the "Viking era"? The obvious answer is the advancement in technology, with more powerful bows and crossbows, stronger armours... but it does not completely make sense to me. Even if throwing weapon is completely outclassed at long range, at point-blank, see-the-white-of-their-eyes range, an opening volley of thrown spears should still be considerably dangerous. It's not like everyone in a typical army of this period was completely encased in the best plate armour available.

As far as I know, longbow arrows could not always reliably pierce good plate armour, but longbows were still deployed en mass against heavily armoured knights, so why not gave the rank and file soldiers some throwing spears to supplement bows/crossbows and help break the enemy advance?

Were throwing weapons too weak? Were medieval armours too restrictive for a good throw compare to earlier armours, and maybe the armour was not designed with throwing in mind? I have seen some reenactment that show off plate armour mobility, but I don't think I have seen anyone throw a spear in plate before. What about lighter armours, like brigandine?

Did anyone from that period leave behind their thought about throwing weapons? Any information about this topic is appreciated, and if I made any wrong assumption, please correct me.

Basically exactly what's in the title. Berlin Olympics don't count since it occurred while there were tensions but WWII hadn't started yet(unless the Nazis were at war with someone already and I just forgot). US/USSR during the Cold War is a really fascinating read but I'm looking more at open warfare. I doesn't have to be a great power war or anything, but I'm mostly interested in overt action (So while Russia/Ukraine arguably count, I'm looking for more traditional conflicts)

If it has occurred, what happened? How did the fans interact with each other? How about the teams?

Japan, Italt and Nazi Germany are always grouped as the Axis powers but I've never seen or read anything that described the relationship between Japan and the other Axis powers. Hitler worked very closely with Italy in Europe, but was there any kind of "working" relationship between Jaoan and the other Axis powers? Or was it more of just a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but each keeping to their own devices?

He refers to the Franks in his speech at Clermont. Who exactly were they by the 11th century? Were they the same people that had overrun Gaul in the Late Roman period?

As far as I can tell the attack was neither connected to any Palestinian/Lebanese group in Lebanon nor was based out of Lebanon. The group that did the attack was outright anti-PLO. So why did Israel invade in 1982?

According to CIA reports Arafat was suppressing attacks against Israel as he was bogged down in his conflict with Syrian backed Rejectionist Palestinian groups and Kataeb

After 8 years the army was over 5,000 kilometres (I think?) from Greece, and that's not even taking into account that they had snaked down into Egypt before heading back up to head further East. How was moving a huge army like this over such distance so quickly even logistically possible? Boats? Horses?

It seems like it would have been wiser to clear out the machine gun nests ahead of the beach landing, rather than throwing bodies at the problem. If there is a good reason for why they didn't do a bombing run or even fire artillery from the water first I'd be interested to hear it.

[deleted]

It can be found on Chapter 2, page 64 in my edition of the book. While I do know that the BT-series of tanks that preceded the T-34 as well as the T-34 itself used the Christie suspension, his claim seems to imply a larger role than that.

[deleted]

Ive heard it recently and i dont know how many knights or what it even is. Can someone please help?

Everyone named Charlie was probably like "....Come on, man...."

If Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist and Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson were both Democratic Republicans, why did Hamilton have such an important role in the outcome?

I listened to "The Election of 1800" from "Hamilton" and I couldn't establish the link

Eunuchs have played major role in the history of China, at times making up a significant part of the bureaucracy. Their political value, to me, seems apparent; if a position of power is inhabited by someone who is unable to have children, then that position can be filled at the discretion of the ruler by the most qualified candidate, not the candidate of the highest birth. Yet I haven't heard much about eunuchs being present at all in the Roman Empire. Have I just not done enough reading? Were they a significant force?

By the way, sorry about the tasteless phrasing of the question. I couldn't think of a better way to put it.

[deleted]

I found a good book on the history of the Vagina but am having trouble finding one on WW2... Can someone help?