In many TV shows and movies, whenever archers are used, there is often a stereotypical list of commands given. They are first called out, then once they are ready they are then told to all nock, then draw, then after a few seconds shoot.

This seems a bit far fetched to me. In the chaos of battle, in an era where orders were shouted and signaled with flags, it seems like just giving the orders to hold or "fire at will" to be anachronistic was probably a challenge, did they really sync up the initial volleys?

Both I and my History teacher have been looking all over the internet, and the best we can find are partial translations, and scans of the original text in Classical Chinese. Surely there's a translation in full somewhere out there, right?

Because what I read about the Japanese Civil Wars. With all the assassinations of Emperor's going on. And all the backstabbing that can literally be compared to Game of Thrones. I find it hard to believe that they actually had so much honor.

Can anyone recommend me some good historical recipe books? I'm really interested in some recipes from ancient times well up to about 200 years ago.

How long has it been standard that men and women wear their hair differently? Hair length related to gender is very ingrained in out culture. Many young children use hair length as their primary way to identify genders. When did long hair start being viewed as feminine? When did the majority of men start wearing short hair? I know different cultures came to this standard at different times so I would like to know more about how hair length customs started, different reasons behind them, and their origin

So, I recently read a book about the history of Canada, but it was so dry and full of numbers and only discussed the point of view of politicians. I'm interested in reading books on history of different nations but with a focus more on important events and people. Something along the line of A People's History of the United States or at least something more focused on the people and not so much on politics. Thanks

I have some history of these people, and some stuff that I've learned from my grandmother but that's more what her life was like when she was young.

I'd like to learn more about the realities of my people and how they lived, as opposed to pop culture understanding of them.

Any solid resources beyond general Internet research to learn would be greatly beneficial in my search.

Thank you!

Slavs today use two major writing systems, the Cyrillic alphabet, which was created by Christian missionaries Cyril and Methodius, and the Latin alphabet which comes from Rome. There was also the Glagolitic alphabet, which was also created by Cyril and Methodius, and more directly influenced by their native Greek. All of these writing systems came with Christianity, a very small part of the Slavic lands was ever under Roman rule, so the Latin alphabet came with the ubiquity of Latin in the Western Church, and the other languages were created with the goal of transmitting Christianity. However, the Slavs weren't Christianized until the end of the first millennium, which means there are 2500 years between the earliest proto-Balto-Slavic peoples and the introduction of the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. So, what was their system of writing?

[deleted]

I was watching a HowItsMade video on gold bars and it looks like it's a very complex process to make pure gold and basically requires us to dig a crater in the earth just to get one bar of gold. Were the Aztecs able to make pure 24 karat gold or was it mostly alloys containing low levels of gold?

It's my understanding that the Treaty of Waitangi was made out of an understanding and acceptance of the reality that unlike the aborigines, the Maori had a larger population and a more advanced society and wouldn't allow themselves to be treated like native fauna or subhumans, not because the British government/settlers wanted to give them land rights and political power. However, the idea that NZ didn't join the Australian federation out of concern for the Maori and the continued adherence to the treaty contradicts that, so is it true?

If so, what influenced the different attitudes toward native people in either country? Was it a matter of exposure, a perception of the Maori as more civilized than natives in Australia and elsewhere or something else?

I know there's a ton of context around the Japanese surrendering to the US because they were afraid of Soviet reprimand (I think), and worried about Communist thought in the country (I presume, at least). But if the fighting would have gone to the bitter end, with both the Soviets and Americans having to launch naval invasions of the Japanese mainland, were there any plans in place with how to deal with it? Would they divide it up, like Germany, have a "race-to-Berlin" style land-grab to Tokyo, or merely just let the other faction focus on it because they did not want to deal with the issues that could surrounding occupying Japan?

[deleted]

[deleted]

from my understanding, Semitic refers to speakers of Semitic languages, including Arabic, Hebrew, etc. When did it narrow down to Jews (like in "Anti-Semitism")?

Or is it the other way around, that "Semitic" was only recently used to describe Semitic peoples, and that it was used originally to describe Jews?

[deleted]

[deleted]

This refers to a line of Martin Luther's where he said: "The tyrant Dionysius illustrated this well when he placed a person who praised his good fortune at the head of a richly laden table. Over his head he suspended an unsheathed sword attached to a silk thread, and below him he put a red-hot fire, saying: Eat and be merry"

?

Medical research, legislation, technology, etc.

Not sure if this is the right sub for this.

I am a big fan of the pre bronze-age-collpase civilizations, and something I note is that they LOVED chariots, and makes sense, it gives mobility, some protection, you can have archers in the chariots and you can move around soldiers quickly through the battlefield.

After the bronze age collapse chariots were still popular, but something happened, now infantry seems much more important, and cavalry becomes a thing, there are still chariots, but they are no longer the core of the army, until eventually no one used them anymore.

Finally, when Cesar went to Great Britain he mentions that the people there used chariots, and by the way he describes them it seems he had never seen them in combat, it's almost like if the Celts were behind in the tech tree, but I see no reason for chariots to be an inferior technology