With its ability to punch through armor and kill knights, the longbow is kind of like the pre-modern equivalent of the firearm. Considering the fact that it was the law that free farmers had to train in its use, there must have been large numbers of Englishmen who had the ability to bring down the soldiers of their local barons. Wouldn't this create great potential for revolts and rebellions? Could this have contributed to the relatively early collapse of feudalism in England?

I just watched all of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. I'm well aware it's not 100% accurate, but, it's a fantastic series to just to get some thoughts going.

During the WW2 episode he mentioned how companies like IBM and Ford directly aided the Nazis. It even mentioned the Bush family managed bank accounts for Nazis. Chase and The Bank of International Settlement and many more also were mentioned. If this is all true: 1.) What the hell? 2.) Why wasn't I taught any of this in school?

Disney back in the 20th Century, had cemented their brand in the West through the use of Princesses to the point where every little girl even now wants to be "treated like a princess" despite Monarchies being not too popular during the time. Is there some historical context that showed how Princesses were excessively privileged and beloved by the masses?

(Yes I know that nations did not technically exist but I’m using the word for lack of a better one)

Some examples of the rise in status would be the duchy of Bohemia within the Holy Roman Empire transitioning into the kingdom of Bohemia, and the county of Lancaster within England turning into a duchy.

A famous case of a lower title not claiming itself as a kingdom would be the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Now as for Lithuania I do know that they were a kingdom only for a little while, but I can’t really find the reason why they went back to the status of a (Grand) duchy, and on top of that, they were massive, if not bigger than the Holy Roman Empire itself. There’s also the county of Toulouse that was much bigger than their fellow ducal vassals of the French crown, and yet they never became a duchy?

So to restate my question in a broader sense, what steps did a nation take to increase/receive its status, was it typically easy or hard to increase its status in such a way, and were there any benefits and/or downsides/ restrictions to increasing your title?

P.S. You can interpret this as a general “how did titles work” in general, so if you want to answer as such, then go ahead.

P.P.S. You can also answer all the specific examples i provided since I understand that this question may be a little broad.

For those that don't know the DSM is the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental illness.

Did they walk around all day, go to services, dropped off food and gifts to their shrines? Did they have small personal shrines or totems in their home for the gods like we do with crosses?

I mean Phalanx with shield walls and large pikes seems overpower.

or they did?

Oh, I have read abaout that Spanish infantery "Tercios?", they did and they were unstoppable, right?

[deleted]

My theories-

Spanish immigrants arrived first, and Argentina received Spanish-seaking spillovers from nearby colonies.

OR

Spanish immigrants who more unified in their spoken dialect, while Italian immigrants (coming from both the North and the South of Italy) were very disunified in their dialects, which made Spanish the most reliable lingua franca.

With the massive losses sustained, did anyone lower than an officer survive the very initial confrontation, from the first day of Barbarossa to the end of WW2?

Did anyone survive it without extreme wounds that disqualified them from military service/being re-conscripted?

For example, how do Hannibal's tactics of the Battle of Cannae, a battle fought by foot soldiers and cavalry, apply today, 2,000 years later?

I can find rough descriptions most of these but not really how there were different and worked relative to each other. I have a pretty good idea I think for example the difference between Jagers and line infantry but I can't find anything clear on most cavalry types for example. Some of the designations don't make a lot of sense to me, much like I imagine the division between special forces/light/motorized/mechanized infantry which is obvious to us wouldn't make sense to 18th century people.

For example, it seems Uhlans, Hussars and Lancers were all medium/light lance cavalry going by most things I've seen, but they weren't considered the same type of unit, and most nations despite being diverse all used most of these categories. It also seems Dragoons were employed as a sort of poor man calvary or relatively cheaply equipped cavalry but nowadays "Dragoon" implies some degree of eliteness. I would assume that Grenadiers were infantry that were trained in use of explosives but this apparently wasn't the main thing that made them Grenadiers, it was mostly elite units of bigger guys, and I don't see why that would be associated with explosives. Help me make sense of this.

How did they overlap, how were they viewed relative to each other in both roles and prestige, etc.

I'd love to find a ELI5 on how Napoleonic age infantry were categorized, viewed and employed basically, but more like ELI25.

In r/worldbuilding we're discussing a mercenary based Military for a merchant state and someone mentioned that it was an guaranteed coup but I can't think of any historical examples

So, Bronze Age armor is (probably) going to be bronze, but what sort of colors could the cloth worn underneath a soldiers armor be?

[deleted]

Specially, the 'declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify the secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union'

Not looking for anything extensive, just a good source that has info on the author(s), signatories, and some general context. Thanks!

We are mostly familiar with Machiavelli for his cunning although abet also a bit ruthless ways for his teachings and his book "The Prince" shows more importance importance on how to be an efficient and sometimes even a ruthless leader if necessary rather solely on focusing on being a gentle and tender leader.

Based on my understanding on Machiavelli, he never really did neglect on being moral, gentle or timid leader but he prioritized on the much darker side because he saw the world as a ruthless, competitive place where people will do whatever they can do what they want and how they want it and will look for the weak ones to go for (like tenderness may appear as weak for some even though it is also a strength because it helps gain a lot of love and influence from the general population. One example in particular is the Pope who not only is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church but he truly represents kindness and he is loved for his kindness)

Based solely on my understanding, I do not think that Machiavelli was evil or malevolent or cruel.

I do think that he was more or less practical because he believed that you have to be cunning to be efficient and sometimes, you have to be "dirty" to get things done, a trope that is often popular among politicians who appear as loving and benevolent but may truly be the opposite in reality (of course, politics is a very complicated subject which involves emphasis on power and influence)

But then again, the word "Machiavellian" gains a lot of notoriety because it explains the person will do anything for self-interest

So was Machiavelli truly a malevolent figure or did this writings eventually make him appear as one?

Were these names common at the time? Were Greeks named after legendary characters?

As a secondary question: I read that vikings thought that magic was for girls, seeing it as something unmanly. Is that true?

Getting a sense of what medieval people wore is kind of difficult, because the vast majority of pictures online tend to be pretty inaccurate, and the ones that are correct usually just show your standard brown tunic. But what if I'm a peasant in 14th century England during the winter? What materials would I be wearing? Fur, leather, etc? A hat? A hood?