The English soundly beat an army of pikemen while primarily using the billhook at Flodden. But it seems pretty shortly after the English army mostly used pikes. If they could so decisively beat pikes, why did the English stop using them? The ooke was the main infantry melee infantry weapon through almost 1700, way after flodden, so they were not for lack of opponents.

Was flodden a fluke, like how the Spanish sword and buckler troops beat pikes at Ravenna, but never really did again? Did something change after flodden?

at the beginning of the 20th century, the netherlands had colonies all over the world; by the end, most of them had become independent, with the exceptions of Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, & other smaller islands in the Caribbean. since there was agitation for independence in these areas during the height of decolonization in the mid-20th century, i'm curious: why did these movements not succeed while others, including in nearby Suriname, did?

I'm planning to run Youtube and Tik Tok channels which would feature content adressing historical misconceptions and myths that are pervasive in social media and popular imagination...but I have several limitations I already described in the question. I'm no academic nor history student and live in a country where the exchange between our local currency and the USD/Euro/Pound is in the thousands of units, which makes most books and articles really pricey for me. Still, I'd like to source my videos rigurously, post them in my video descriptions and try to raise awareness of proper research among my potential viewers.

Since institutional access is out of the question, that leaves me with free sources only, which are still difficult to come by or cross check depending on the subject I may be investigating. All of this has made me realize I will most likely not be able to undertake this alone and I will need top notch support. I don't want to plagiarize materials nor cite any academic without giving them due credit, lets make that clear.

Even if no one here can actively work with me, I'd still appreciate any suggestion of people working in the field.

By the end of Columbus' first expedition, he already knew that the Taino people (forgive me if that's incorrect it's been a while since I looked into this) were kind and would be easy to subjugate.

To know this he would therefore have needed to actually speak with the people, and he would have certainly needed to speak when enslaving them later down the line.

So who were the first people to translate between the languages, and how exactly would this have been done?

Say a conscripted man was severally autistic, or had OCD which made living in a dirty trench impossible to deal with, were any allowances made for these neurodivergent people?

Most of the accounts are from a perspective of Alexander pushing forward into India.

What is the perspective from India when they saw a large massive Greek army coming their way?

I would imagine that they had news of a large army approaching but was their any kind of planning or strategies among other kingdoms? How would they be prepared for the attack

Sorry if its been asked before. Did this happen often and if so did it usually conclude or start the battle?

There are many examples of a country’s armed forces being and attacked or killed being used as a cause for war, but during the Korean War multiple countries deployed upwards of several thousand military service members for several years but never actually declared war on one another. I guess my main question is how could the Korean War involve the armed forces of multiple countries on both sides but only have the two Koreas in an actual state of war with one another, and never evolve into a larger conflict?

I have recently read Heather’s work as well as Gibbon’s Decline and Fall. To a layman with a basic understanding of the Roman Empire, Heather’s argument has been the most convincing I’ve come across, is this a view reflected in the historical community? By extension, are there any books that I can read to gain a wider understanding of the historiography of the Western Roman Empire?

I just recently bought Osprey Publishing's Armies of the First Sino-Japanese War mainly for the illustrations. The book argued that the Qing army was mostly equipped with 'archaic' weapons:

"At the time of the First Sino-Japanese War the Chinese forces as a whole were armed with a bewildering variety of different weapons. Most of these were ‘traditional’ – swords, spears, polearms of many varieties, and composite bows. They were supplemented by large numbers of archaic locally-manufactured matchlock muskets, which had originated in 16th-century Portuguese imports."

However, this flies in the face of what I know regarding the state of the Qing Army, in that they were fairly modern and well-equipped with modern weaponry. Take for example, Allen Fung's "Testing the Self-Strengthening":

"Especially in the early stages of the war, the Chinese armies were on the whole very well-equipped. Take the Battle of Pingrang. According to both Japanese and Chinese sources, the Chinese armies in Pingrang were equipped with the Mauser breech-loaders and quite a number of Krupp artillery guns. In terms of effectiveness, the Mauser breechloaders were comparable to the Murata rifles used by the Japanese armies. In fact, we might say that the Chinese armies enjoyed a slight advantage in terms of rifles because they possessed the more powerful magazine rifles which the Japanese did not."

Could Qing or Chinese military historians enlighten me on how well-equipped the Qing army actually was during the First Sino-Japanese War? Did the Qing actually bring 'archaic' weaponry into combat? If so, how many were there compared to those equipped with modern weaponry?

I've heard it claimed a number of times that sexual attraction to women's breasts (1) isn't universal, and (2) is in fact (relatively) unique to the modern West. Very few things are true cultural universals, so I'm not especially skeptical of (1). But I am a bit skeptical of (2), and I want to know what actual historians think about that claim. I'm no expert, but I'm a fan of ukiyo-e and I've seen a fair number of erotic prints from Edo-era Japan (certainly not a time and place of great Western influence) that definitely seem to be sexually interested in women's breasts. But maybe that's a naive reading, or maybe Japan is just an outlier. Is attraction to breasts actually as uncommon in the historical record as it is sometimes made out to be?

The Soviet Union, during WWII, had an Order 270, which basically criminalized anyone who wanted to retreat or surrender to the Axis Powers. So how were the formerly annexed territories treated after they were liberated in '44?

I’m taking a history class on the fall of the Roman Republic, and I’m a little bit confused about the impact of the legions and their commanders. I learned from lectures that Sulla was a general, who also held two consulships. He and Gaius Marius, another general, both were able to use their personal legions to fight a civil war against each other and seize power in Rome.

I’m confused as to how exactly this diehard loyalty of the legions to their commanders (also mentioned with Julius Caesar) came to be. Why were the Roman legions so loyal to their generals, rather than a sense of duty to uphold the Republic and its democratic processes?

Genuinely curious after a "friend" of mine bought it up while talking about the systemic injustices black people continue to face in modern America. She apparently doesn't buy any of it, but throws out that "Black people were the first to own slaves, you know..." Which not only has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but how do you even respond to that?

Just curious if its true...and if so, how did that come about? Is it possible that at least some of that could be attributed to pressure put on tribes to gather slaves before they themselves were taken into slavery?

Slavery seems to have been a part of humanity for forever...definitely not trying to judge or defend here, just curious as to how widespread it was and what the circumstances may have been.

Years ago I read Alan Brooke’s diary and have recently revisited it in the light of more forgotten people from history accounts doing the rounds. In the daily entries Brooke often gives his opinions of other military leaders, (which in hindsight often seem very shrewd and insightful knowing what we do now) but which are recorded in the light of the day’s events and then get endlessly re-quoted without any context around them. For instance, I often hear that he did not get on with Churchill but reading the diary I don’t get that impression at all, more that he was exasperated with some of Churchills ideas and impetuosities while being fond of the man and his leadership.

Obviously the diary serves to give one way traffic, I can read what Brooke though of the other commanders as the war progresses but I have never heard what any of them thought of Brooke. Are there any good accounts from others of Brooke that can help me understand the man better?

I know of a lot of Norse mythology/ culture from pop culture but trying to dig further into it without the modern interpretation getting in the way is hard to me.

Are there any books that explore a comprehensive Norse mythology in proper historical tone without trying to cash in on the recent popularization of it?

I’m mostly interested in a comprehensive belief system (if there was one) of Norse mythology and how it relates to the actual Norse people, i.e how fervently did they really believe in their mythology? Was the mythology largely homogeneous across different groups? Was their mythology solid and compartmentalized like Christianity? Or was it more loosely interpreted by the people? How does the mythology relate to paganism?

I have the book Eaters of the Dead on my list of books to read, but from what I can tell it’s mostly a historical account of Norse life, rather than their religion.

I’m nearing the end of Proust’s À l'Ombre des Jeunes Filles en Fleurs and I’d always assumed that 1790 had been the end of them in law as well as use, but Proust seems to show that they were not only alive but significant as late as ~1900. Were these vestigial titles that indicated social status without legal effect? Was the distinction mostly a residual effect of generational wealth—and, if so, was this wealth still geographically anchored like such a title would imply?

Thanks!

This question mainly just applies to WW2 and Korea, as I believe those are the last times the US has conducted any large scale amphibious landings.

But on these crafts, were the soldiers just stuffed in without regard to rank or job within the unit. For example, were the officers put at the front of the craft to effectively lead them into battle, or were they put in the back for maximum safety. Were the lowest grunts at the front of the boat?

Or at the end of the day, was it just a random alignment?

Please let me know!