I don't know much about first families and can't seem to find an answer to this question. I know in other countries, family of current leaders have had combat positions, but has a President's immediate family ever served while being part of the First Family?

When firearms became widespread and affordable enough for arming the common soldier, were there still sections of armies that were dedicated to bowmen as well as swordsmen? Or was the transition total, with swordsmen becoming completely outclassed compared to the effectiveness of firearms? In armies of firearms, was there still enough utility brought by swords and bows to justify keeping units for niche use?

I learned that during the American Revolution, the American accent wasn't around yet since American culture was so young at the time and that also the British accent hadn't existed yet either. If this is true, do we know what George Washington would have sounded like?

An Irish user on two TIL threads stated that the Vikings were often decimated by Irish forces during conflicts and that Norse groups settling in Ireland would become the subjects of Irish kings.

I'm have some doubts concerning their overview of Norse/Irish interactions but the sources I have don't really discuss Ireland during the Viking Age outside of a few brief mentions before moving onto England, Scotland, etc.

I ask this because I know from a previous post on askhistorians that there are various theories as to why feudalism didn't take such a strong route in sub-Saharan Africa as it did in European countries and Asian countries but one of them was The size of Africa made it so that there was enough land for farmers to move to if the landlord or local chief was too cruel. Why didn't the same thing happened in Russia considering it's size?

What I know: The council declares Christ perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man. Fair enough.

Now we have Monophysites who think that Christ is purely God, they break away and I get why. Then we have Dyophysites who appear to think Christ is half and half, I see why they are pissed too.

But the Miaphysites? They believe 'Jesus's humanity and divinity were of one in superable nature'. This seems like exactly what the council of 451 had just said.

Please, if you are a historian of theology or church history or have more subtle knowledge regarding the background to this split please enlighten me; I'm sure I'm missing something. All replies appreciated.

Just a quick question. I have a vague idea of the lawlessness that would wrack reconstruction-era West and East Germany, but I'm curious to know if there were any street gangs, German or otherwise, in East German cities. Or was policing effective/heavy enough nothing of the sort would happen?

Let's say in 1920 I have a photograph as well as a hand drawing, both of which I want to have printed in a magazine. How are these transferred from one medium to another?

Currently, the US sits on first place and is spending a few billion more than the next 8 countries combined. Back when it was competing with the Soviet Union, how did the two compare, and how much was the Soviet Union spending in today's money and what part of their budget was allocated for military spending?

I became interested after reading this passage on Wikipedia: "The term neijia and the distinction between internal and external martial arts first appears in Huang Zongxi's 1669 Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan.[12] Stanley Henning proposes that the Epitaph's identification of the internal martial arts with the Taoism indigenous to China and of the external martial arts with the foreign Buddhism of Shaolin—and the Manchu Qing Dynasty to which Huang Zongxi was opposed—was an act of political defiance rather than one of technical classification."

Since the two styles appear to have further diverged and coalesced in the modernization and standardizing of martial arts, were they considered rival styles? I also have in mind the samples used by Wu Tag Clan which includes a kung fu film with the premise based on that exact rivalry.

What does religion have to do with it? Was Buddhism once seen as 'foreign' in China? Is that still the case today?

Recently there has been a TIL thread about hunter-gatherers. In there, there was a comment (don't know if I can link it directly):

When tribute-taking states developed, 90% of the population were peasants who were worked to death and treated like shit by their state and most definitely lived shittier lives than they would have as hunter-gatherers. It's a good example that "progress" doesn't always necessarily mean living better lives.

This sparked upvotes/downvotes and discussion. My question is, how valid is this claim?

I am trying to get a grasp of all the ethnic groups and nationalities in Europe after the fall of the Roman empire from a broader​ perspective but I can only seem to find resources that focus on only one or a couple of these different people's at a time. The situation gets even more complicated because it seems like they were all moving around constantly. Where can I find a breakdown of all these different groups and subgroups without having to go through individually​ and piece all the groups without any context of everyone else at the time?

At Agincourt in 1408 the English army was composed primarily of longbowmen, and those longbows were a major part in enabling the English army to defeat the numerically superior French. At Flodden in 1515, both the English and Scottish armies were composed of massed infantry, and the longbow did not play a significant role.

As far as I'm aware Flodden came before massed gunpowder warfare, and the English had made heavy use of the longbow against the Scottish in the past. it seems like a mass of infantry, without a great deal of heavy armor due to Scotland's poverty, would be a perfect target for longbows

What happened in the intervening 105 years that rendered the longbow so irrelevant at Flodden?

Is it as credible or accurate or even reliable when it comes to learning a thing or two about history?