Specifically, what sort of armour, weapons shield etc. would 'the average' raider have?

Ideally an idea of people who might have raided Lindesfarne up to those who fought at Brunabach (and if possible an idea what their Saxon counter parts, both Housecarl and levy soldier, might have.)

Thanks in advance :)

I know that there are various dialects of Greek, but to my understanding they are mutually intelligible to a degree, with the exception of Tsakonian, which is not derived from Koine Greek, but rather Doric. It seems that Asia Minor and the Levant retained the Greek language for a long time, but it largely lost out to other languages like Turkish and Arabic. Are the modern regional dialects of Greek the result? Why aren't there multiple langues like French, Spanish or Italian etc. ?

I hope this question makes sense.

Thank you in advance!

Given that this event was covered by many Western journalists at the time, there has to be more pictures and videos of it out there right?

So I am currently reading Nagashino 1575: Slaughter at the barricades by Steven Turnbull and he says at around page 50ish (I'm on Kindle so bear with me if I'm incorrect) that before the Oda/Tokugawa forces arrive to relieve Nagashino, Baba Nobuharu attempts to convince Katsuyori to think more tactically by, "Suggesting that if there was to be a fight, it should be conducted from within Nagashino Castle. The Takeda could therefore make a determined effort to take the fortress before the allied army arrived."

So obviously this brings up my question, why didn't Katsuyori just storm the Castle by force to begin with? Turnbull says that they outnumbered the defenders "30 to 1" so I don't understand why a full fledged assault on the castle wouldn't suffice. If Baba Nobuharu was so confident in storming the castle now, why didn't they at the very start?

Katsuyori wanted to live up to his fathers legacy, and this is clearly stated in the book. Although, I don't understand why they would sit around at Nagashino Castle and try to starve such a tiny force out when they had such a superior local force.

I have always wondered if those speeches, followed by battle cries from the troops, which are so common in war scenes have any basis in reality? Any examples of this in literary sources?

Indiana University is more prestigious than Indiana State, University of Minnesota is more prestigious than Minnesota State, The University of California system is more prestigious than the California State system, etc. As far as I can tell, Ohio is the only state where the reverse is true (Ohio State is more prestigious than Ohio University). What happened?

I did some research and I couldn't find any. Did any ancient peoples speculate about moon people or buy into our modern idea of what "aliens" are?

I've heard it rumored that Tigers were actually a group of southern sympathizers which of course something any modern brand would want to distance themselves from or perhaps even rewrite in the case of MU, if true.

Also a fun, but unsubstantiated note on the name Jayhawks: Lawrence is atop the highest hill in Kansas so they always had a birdseye view of anyone coming, like a hawk. They'd then flank them, in the shape of a J. For this reason Quantrill raided at night under the cover of darkness and massacred anyone in town.

I've recently read Fire-eater, Storm of Steel, and Company K and I was looking for a similar war memoir written by a soldier from WWII. The reading list for this sub has plenty of books dealing with WWII but I did not see many memoirs. I read With the Old Breed and loved it, so I was hoping to find something similar.

Apologies for the dumb question. I'm interested in a specific subject which partially deals with actual history and was looking into writing a book on it in my spare time. The only real experience I have with doing research is for writing papers during my undergrad, so very limited in scope with a clear thesis I was trying to prove, and very limited in how long it could be.

How do you know if your source is subpar or generally thought of as bad in history circles (if you haven't been in history circles in a decade)? How do you find research to ensure you look at all sides of an event, every view point so I avoid just reinforcing what I already believe going in? How do you find more specific information on a broader topic?

Again, apologies for the dumb questions. Thanks!

From my point of view there seems to be a large and recent increase in activists, writers, academics, etc. using modern ethical standards to retroactively judge historical figures.

Today Shaun King, a prominent African-American writer, said on Twitter that no president who owned slaves is worthy of honor - including Washington and Jefferson.

Recently, Princeton has been pressured to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson from their School of Public and International Affairs, which so far they have resisted.

A third example is with Christopher Columbus, whose reputation within my lifetime (I'm 33) has suffered immensely to the point where many refuse to celebrate the holiday in his honor and ask for it to be re-christened for some less offensive person or event.

Personally, it strikes me that it's unfair to judge historical figures so totally by modern ethical standards. In 2017 we have the benefit of hundreds of years of evidence (and pocket-sized computers which can access the sum of human knowledge in seconds) that certain policies and institutions were vile and reprehensible (though admittedly in the case of slavery it should have been apparent prima facie).

As historians, have you observed a surge in such sentiments recently, say the past 20 years? If so, what do you think are the reasons, and most importantly, do you think it's proper historiologically to judge historical figures harshly if they don't live up to early-21st century Western morality? Thanks in advance!

Beyond the rhetorical (orator), was he influential in deciding troop movement, placement, attack strategies?

Did he technically kill anyone personally, Jewish or not?

They're both called 韩国 so I am wondering if the names are the same because there is a relationship between them.