I'd like to better equip myself for these sorts of debates as they seem to be appearing more frequently.

I'm coming out of my comfort zone and have taken on the challenge of painting Napoleonic miniatures rather than what I'm used to (WW2 and Cold War) and I have some questions regarding Napoleonic military history:

I know they used companies, battalions, and whatnot, but from my cursory readings these levels of organizations were vastly different from what I am normally familiar with. How many men were in a company? How many companies made a battalion? What was the standard unit on the battlefield? Did companies fight as single units or did they muster together as a full battalion to fight as a single unit?

Also I would like some resources to look up uniforms and what color, what they looked like for the time.

Good afternoon gentlemen and ladies, I was curious to find out what material was used to make British uniforms in World War 2, along with what traditional uniforms the soldiers wore when they went to battle.

Thank you for all your help! :)

I saw a video on the roman invasion of england, and it discusses the natives. They certainly spoke a Celtic language, but that did not necessarily make them Celtic. The video compares this to modern day Britain, just because English is a Germanic language does not make them German. Is there any truth to this? And if there is, what ethnic group did they belong to?

Considering that siege towers were extremely heavy and hard to maneuver, why didn't the defenders just build dirt slopes and mounds around the walls, so the attackers wouldn't get them near the walls?

Also, should the attackers try to flatten the slopes, they would be in range of the archers on the wall.

I've been watching Ken Burns documentary and the French literally had a base for ambush overlooked by perfect places for artillery pieces and soldiers. Was this the hubris of the French? Was it something else? What would make them think this was a viable strategy?

Other than eye witness testimony and written accounts, is their any verifiable proof of the crossing? Ships could be planted after the war, bodies could be killed elsewhere, and the story could be just a military boost at the time.

(I'm not sure if anyone is going to take this question serious or not, but if we cant trust written reports what can we trust?)

Thanks for your time!

According to Johan Henrik Schreiner, professor emeritus at the University of Oslo.

How would you effectively call back ships at sea in ~500 BCE?

There was just so much useless crap after a city was bombed. How did they dispose of this?

Sorry if this question is dumb. I know that Nazi germany would not invade Britain, but still, they still bombed the hell out of London. Didn't the UK have an air force to defend itself properly?

Also, could they attack Berlin or another german city with their aircrafts? Thanks.

Chapter 67 of Egil's saga describes Yule gifts presented to Egil by his Norwegian host. These included 'a complete set of newly-tailored clothes; they were cut from English cloth in many colours.' Of course, this could refer to cloth in the time of the saga in the ninth century or during its thirteenth-century authoring of the saga (or any time between). Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

I am writing a paper on the use of artillery during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in 1918. I have most of the pieces that I need but I cannot find any good primary sources for the time frame. I am also suspect of my source for comparing the French and German artillery capabilities, so if there is a great one for that, it would be much appreciated. Thank you for the help.

I.e., Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, New Guinea (and maybe Guyana if that has a similar word origin?)

I saw someone claiming this on r/Denmark. Not sure which crusade he was referring to.

The situations seem somewhat similar to me in broad respects. The British of the 5th century and the Saxons of the 9th century each were a disparate group of petty kingdoms facing migrating waves of invaders from across the sea--the Saxons themselves in the former period, and the Danes/Norse in the latter.

The Post-Roman British were unable to resist the Saxons and eventually either migrated to Wales and Brittany or were forcibly absorbed by the Saxons. The Saxons themselves, meanwhile, were able to defeat the Danes/Norse and integrated them into the dominant Saxon culture.

Recognizing that reliable records from these periods are sparse, can we say with any level of confidence why one group successfully defended themselves, and the other did not?

Thanks! This doesn't get discussed the way WWII returns do.

It seems that almost every other European country has something that could be considered a national dress, hell even the Scottish and welsh have their own but England seems lacking in one.