I'm asking because I'm writing a sort of early renaissance era fantasy novel. The important things for this question are guns are unheard of, made only by those smart enough to develop the idea on their own, and there are people who can "Burst" aspects of themselves like strength, speed, and durability (Along with more exotic things like edibility and flammability but that is neither here nor there). These people can heal quickly, but if cut by a specific alloy of steel called Fluidsteel they cannot heal that wound via Bursting. Fluidsteel is expensive and since the alloy doesn't negate durability, most Bursters fight close combat with Rondel daggers made from the stuff. I'm imagining if you tried to fight using a thin sword like a saber the amount of force a two Bursters would apply would break the swords.

Bursting durability for an average Burster would get them to be about as resistant to cutting weapons as bone.

This all being said, what armor style would these Bursters likely wear? Or would it not even matter at the power level Bursting is at, and if so, how much weaker should Bursting be to have armor be at all effective?

TL;DR: If I had a much greater carry weight, what armor made of what material would give me the best chance of not dying?

We take for granted these fundamental understandings of how the universe works, and it leads me to my curiosity toward civilizations that existed before understanding these basic scientific principles. Specifically the nature of sound waves (and maybe Doppler effect if anything existed to display the phenomenon)

It doesn't have to be all the kingdoms, you can focus on the one you know best.A general overview would suffice also. Like after the last western empire who took power and how. Why was the empire so fractured that so many cultures and languages developed in this small area is what i'm wondering.

Did he sue Ferdinand of Aragon? How do you even sue a Spanish king in Spain and win? What was in it for Charles V (I) that Diego Colon's rights were recognized? What was the forum for pressing these claims that they could have been granted even against the convenience of the Crown?

From what I understand the ranks were created to reward good soldiers who otherwise weren't fit to lead other soldiers, but today it seems like that leadership is requisite to be promoted above E-4. Was leadership ability less important to the military at that time?

TSgt. was a rank created due to the increase in technology during WWII. The rank was abolished after the war. Were Specialists intended to be Specialists in the same vein as the TSgt?

On 1989 Nintendo Company released The Power Glove and also "The Wizard" movie to sell even more units. The Power Glove was really so bad as the movie stated or it's just our wrong perception? Maybe people of that time perceived it differently as how we perceive it nowadays?

It is true that Hitler only wanted the races and cultures not to mix or he wanted to eliminate them. Many neo-Nazis repeat this so I do not know if this is true.

I was reading an article about Russian strategy and how they struggle because of their lack of Navy (their main sea ports are easily blockaded) and the article claimed that 'you cannot support major forces from the air alone.'

Are there and examples through history of this being true? The article doesn't cite any precedent for this statement so why would it be true?

Http://www.mauldineconomics.com/this-week-in-geopolitics/mapping-Russia's-strategy

Was there any historical/cultural/racial reasoning as to why they had the right to invade other countries, or was it commonly accepted to be simply in the interests of the empire.

Like underground installations with enough food and water storage to give humanity, or even a small group of people a shot at living?

Or was it just understood that if we had a nuclear exchange and a nuclear winter it was gg no re.

So, I took a political compass test today and during the summary, I was hit by a very interesting quote.

"If you had barred economic policies from discussion, Hitler and Stalin would have agreed on almost everything."

This is paraphrasing a bit; I'll edit in the direct quote later. However, it did raise an interesting thought that never crossed my mind. Both dictators relied heavily on nationalism, industrialisation, state coming before the people, oppressing or purposely cleansing ethic groups, jailing political threats, opponents or anyone showing the faintest hints of disdain. Hitler was definitely more hawkish, but Stalin was no dove, either.

On paper, this seems like a true observation. In fact, if Hitler didn't hate communist/socialist almost as much as Jews, wouldn't the USSR be a natural ally?

That is if this formation was actually used. Since it's pretty famous it wouldn't surprise me if it was a myth, like vikings with horned helmets. This formation seems a pretty decent protection against arrows and small rocks (from slingshots) but would it be as viable against crossbow bolts? Even if it isn't viable against crossbows, wouldn't it be better than nothing at all?

The wikipedia entry for "Hoplite" states that:

"The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if or when their spears were broken or lost, or if the phalanx broke rank. The xiphos usually had a blade around 60 centimetres (24 in) long; however, those used by the Spartans were often only 30–45 centimetres long. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword. Such a small weapon would be particularly useful after many hoplites had started to abandon body armour during the Peloponnesian War"

Is this true, and if so, what prompted the abandonment of armour?

I posted this a few weeks ago with no response, I figured I'd try again today for the holiday.

We are taught in school that the signers of the declaration of independence were committing treason against the crown of England by signing. Clearly these were famous men of their times, people recognized them in their respective hometowns. They also made no effort to hide the fact that they all signed with Hancock notoriously signing in large letters.

So what was the initial response from England? Were these men instantly made criminals in the eyes of the King? How did they avoid capture until 1783? Were any of them captured? What was to stop Hancock from being arrested in his home? If a group of British Soldiers walked by and recognized one of them men, would they arrest him on the spot?

A lot happens between 1776 and the end of the war. We don't hear much about what the members of Congress do to keep from being captured.

It doesnt seem that any cities still exist and very few even survived into the common era.

Also, there don't seem to be any historically notable cities at all in southern mesopotamia after the Islamic conquest.

I'm most interested in the second wave of British Romanticism, which includes Lord Byron, John Keats, and the two Shelleys, although feel free to address my question with regard to Wordsworth, Coleridge, Southey, etc., too. I seem to remember reading that Byron disliked the term Romantic (which I recall had none of the lovey-dovey connotations it does today, and was basically a synonym of "novelesque," just as "romance" and "novel" seem to have been synonyms at the time based on the subtitles I've seen for Gothic novels of the period). If not Romantics, what would they have called themselves, if anything? Did they have a sense of being part of a common literary movement, apart from the fact that they pretty much all knew each other?

First of all, I am a huge fan of the first wave of English Gothic literature (which is often dated from 1764 with the publication of Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto to 1820 with Charles Maturin's Melmoth the Wanderer, although this periodization is certainly debatable).

As the name of the genre itself suggests, many Gothic novels were set in the Middle Ages (or in the Early Modern Period). The Gothic novel also coincided with a broader revived interest in the Middle Ages in Great Britain.

However, I imagine that their depiction of the Middle Ages was often far from historically accurate. A seemingly obvious example to me of historical inaccuracy is that they often describe Medieval castles and abbeys as lying in ruins during the period when they were in use. Furthermore, 18th c. English people, who either saw themselves as pious Protestants or enlightened Deists, had strong ideological reasons to paint Medieval Catholics in a very unflattering light.

With that preamble, I'd like to know of some historical inaccuracies about the Middle Ages in such novels, be they obvious or subtle.

As a related question, I'd like to ask, to what extent is the present popular conception of the Middle Ages in Anglo-American countries based on the period's depiction in Gothic novels?

Let me know if there is anything I can clarify about my question(s). I look forward to your responses! Thanks!

Before the Greek 'colonization' of eastern & nothern Anatolia in the 12th & 8th century BC, there were people living in the area. Who were those people? Do they have any connection to Assyrians or Kurds?

The areas had remained Greek for millenia, up until the genocide/population exchange by Turkey, where Greeks majorities in the area (A LOT of people) left. I found it an question and I'm really curious!

Most people know about Kosovo and the dispute between Serbia & Albania. I saw some maps and I decided to ask why is the area called Vojvodina 'seperated' with dotted lines (Much like Kosovo in order to avoid the flame war). However I've never heard about it.

I have a goods knowledge of the ethnic groups in the Balkans & at that particular area. What's the deal with Vojvodina really?