I'm unsure how to frame this properly, but something has been bothering me.

According to wikipedia, who cites Antoine-Henri Jomini, when faced with a bayonet charge the other side would often flee before contact was made. They also say that less than 2% of casualties where from bayonets.

So what my question to historians of the "hand to hand" combat eras is:

How much do we know about how comfortable/willing your average armed human (in your era of expertise) was with stabbing or getting stabbed?

Or more simply, if humans by the Napoleonic era would rather flee than face pointy sticks, how did their ancestors do it?

I would imagine that some soldiers would gladly throw away their own weapons for a better one looted from a foe, but what problems did that cause logistically? If not, what was done with all the captured guns?

Every painting depicting a kitchen from the 1600's through the early 1800's seems to show a cauldron- often on the hearth. When did they go out of favor? Also, I rarely see big cast iron cauldrons at antique shops. Were the melted down during scrap metal drives during World War II, or did they disappear earlier than that?

As far as I understand, we know Homeric hymns through medieval Byzantine manuscripts. Copying books was time consuming, so I'm a little surprised people continued to copy pagan religious texts of all things. Were they considered culturally important, were they thought of as just good stories, or is there some other reason behind it?

I Have a final paper due in my Introduction to Western Civilization course at University.

I’m thinking for one the 95 theses by Martin Luther since it led to to the Protestant Reformation. Also thinking about some Roman art/statues because of the impact it had on Renaissance art and how our current culture enjoys Renaissance style art.

Do those 2 sound like solid choices? Or anything else more interesting to write about?

Unless I'm mistaken, most Roman emperors would have only been "Imperator" to the soldiers. And while we still do use "Prince" and "Lord (cognate to Dominus)", they represent something far less prestigious than "Emperor". We even apply the term to post-Roman rulers who are not marital in character. Why has the title of Imperator retained such unique prestige above all others?

I just finished reading "A Butler's Guide To Running a Home and Other Graces" by Stanley Ager, a former butler and valet from ~1920-1970.

He talks about how a valet or maid's primary task was the care of clothing for their gentleman or lady. This seems to include actual laundry only a fraction of the time (excepting ironing, which seems to happen a lot.)

Since the book is a how-to, he goes into minute detail about how to brush clothing, why to brush clothing, and what sort of brush to use. He insists that a lot of dust collects on the shoulders and cuffs of garments, and that brushing is the only way to ensure things stay clean.

Granting that people didn't do laundry nearly as often back then, and granting that people did many, many changes of clothes during a day when the clothes could not reasonably be soiled yet, was there really so much more need for clothes brushes than there is now?

Or are we all disgusting philistines who should be brushing off our clothes at the end of the day if we plan to wear them again?

In terms of training and equipment, particularly weapons. I'd guess that the British Royal Marines used the Snider–Enfield, and perhaps the French the Chassepot, although I have my doubts. But what about the US? And were there any notable differences in their training and tactics noted in the history books?

I feel like Mexico feels more like visiting a European country than either of the U.S. or Canada. It seems older with more culture and tradition. Is this just a personal bias, or is there a reason for it?

Furthermore, I've read that their trade spread from North America to the Middle East. With that in mind what was the relationship like between regional and long-distance systems in relation to Britain?

For example, I'm assuming Vikings wouldn't sail all the way from, say, Dublin to Baghdad even though there's evidence in a number of hoards that they were connected somehow.

In World Order, Henry Kissinger quickly summarizes 18th century politics in Europe with a passage that avoids a lot of interesting topics:

The first half of the 18th century was dominated by the quest to contain France; the second was shaped by Prussia's effort to find a place for itself among the major powers. Where Louis had fought wars to translate power into hegemony, Prussia's Frederick II went to war to transmute latent weakness into great-power status. Situated on the harsh North German plain and extending from the Vistula across Germany, Prussia cultivated discipline and public service to substitute for the larger population and great resources of better-endowed countries. Split into two noncontiguous pieces, it jutted precariously into the Austrian, Swedish, Russian, and Polish spheres of influence. It was relatively sparsely populated; its strength was the discipline with which it marshaled its limited resources. Its greatest assets were civic mindedness, an efficient bureaucracy, and a well trained army.

There are many interesting points here, but what was Prussia's "efficient bureaucracy", how was Prussia's bureaucracy different from any other, and how could a bureaucracy be one of Prussia's "greatest assets" in Frederick's desire for Prussian expansion?

I am specifically asking in regards to Cortez scuttling his ships after arriving in Mexico and how it relates to the following passage in "The Art of War:"

"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."

To me it sounds like Cortez did have an understanding which I am trying to prove in a paper, but I am lacking the sources to prove my claim. I have looked for sources into the subject matter but so far have come up empty handed.

I assume he didn't view the Brits the same way he did the Slavs. Was lebensraum on the agenda? Mass genocide? If I recall, wasn't the King at the time a secret supporter of the Nazi party?

Cromwell and his supporters are often described as republicans, and while that makes sense during the civil wars, I want to know if they still thought of themselves that way afterwards. When the Commonwealth became a hereditary dictatorship, did the Roundheads try to draw any distinction between how that was any different from a monarchy?