I mean, sure, the firearms of the napoleonic era didn't reall suck that much anymore. However, in the late medieval ages, early renaissance european armies started to replace bows with early firearms like the Arquebusiers (or however you write that). But why? As far as I know, such early firearms were vastly inaccurate and a bow was way more effective.

And with what value might that correspond today?

I've been reading about Chinese labourers on the Western Front during the First World War, and was intrigued to see that the French Franc was the currency of choice for their pay by both French and British overseers. I'm a bit hazy on the precise amounts being paid between labourer and family, comparatively, but I do know that the French offered 50 Francs to each labourers' family in addition to whatever the labourer was paid, while the British paid each labourer 1 Franc per day. Labourers for the French were given Sundays off and accorded the same rights as white labourers; those working for the British worked seven days a week, with time off only being given for Chinese festival days.

All involved were determined to avoid any suggestion of the indentured servitude that had marked the labour of the Chinese for certain European powers in bygone years, so these pay structures were admirably enforced -- but what were they actually worth in terms that make sense to my dismal modern brain?

The Europeans in the 1800s-1900s made colonies in Africa and typically made the land they're on another state. But in the middle East, they negotiated with clan leaders, paid them the returns (which were worth millions), and they also didn't build colonies. How come?

Dear Historians,

I am fascinated by the Colonial period, with a particular interest in Britain's role in India. Are there any films that you'd be able to recommend? I enjoyed "Zulu" and "Waterloo".

What should I watch next?

Thank you in advance.

I've wondered about this for a while -- it seems like Churchill should have won by a landslide, having just won WWII and collected all of that prestige. I've never heard about any kind of scandal surrounding him that could have cost him the election.

When you think about prominent 3rd party candidates in modern (post-WWII) U.S. elections, a few names come to mind: Thurmond and Wallace, who actually won electoral votes; Ross Perot, with his highly successful back-to-back campaigns in the 90s; Ralph Nader and his spoiler effect for Gore in Florida and New Hampshire. John B. Anderson, in spite of earning the 4th most votes of any third-party candidate ever, is relatively unknown. Why is that?

The 1980 election was one of a few elections to be an electoral landslide, in spite of Reagan only receiving 50.7% of the popular vote. Which candidate did Anderson draw the most votes from, and did he help Reagan achieve the electoral landslide, or did he simply reduce Reagan's popular vote share from what it would have been in a head-to-head with Carter?

As history continues to advance and revise, at what point does interpretation become outdated? Is it okay to read older works for information, and not just the historiography? Or should a reader stick to stuff written within 15-20 years?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm playing a campaign in the wargame Lion Rampant with some friends where we all have mercenary companies vying for power in Europe during the late 14th century and I was wondering about how people actually formed mercenary companies. Were there any specific requirements and regulations or was it more of a free-for-all situation?

Also, why weren't other Asian countries also as adversely affected by opium, e.g. Japan, Korea, Thailand?

I realise it would not make not much sense, but would it have been legally possible?

Here in the UK we learnt at school that Britain began repaying the loans back to America almost immediately and obviously continued to do so.

What about Russia though? They benefited massively from American materiel and I'm sure the American government wouldn't just give it away for free.

Basically, what was the situation regarding payment for the materiel sent to Russia given the fact that the Cold War made them enemies of the US? Did they even have to pay? Did they not pay any? Some of it? All of it?

I thought at this point China and the USSR were pretty good allies.

Did native Americans have different religious groups or did they all follow the same general religion? How different were their religions across the continent?

Edit: I am most interested in the centuries right before colonization so between 1000 - 1492 A.D. Specifically across modern day Mexico, U.S., and Canada.

How did the Ottoman Empire and government decide who was to be the next sultan once the current one died? Additonally, did this ever change and did that impact the quality of ruler?

I remember reading in a book about how it took the founding fathers a hilariously long time to come to the consensus that the president should be called "Mr. President". It made me realize that they probably needed to debate it since no one else has been called that. A quick wikipedia search showed that the word "President" did exist, but no one ever has used that term for a non-monarchic ruler. Where did the founding fathers get the idea to use that, and why that term?