Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have seen the Romans barely used them during battles. Why is that? does it have something to do with the way that Romans fought and their view of how wars should be fought? I was reading A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, although a different time the author references how archers were considered lesser soldiers, was it the same for the Romans?

I have heard a factoid often repeated that troops and commanders in the American Civil War were less willing to fix bayonets and charge to force a decisive end to an infantry firefight than contemporary or Napoleonic European armies. This is usually stated as being a reason for supposedly comparatively-higher casualties sustained in ACW firefights which would, according to this logic, go on for much longer and inflict more casualties than a decisive charge, which would result in one side fleeing.

Is this true? If so, was it simply a product of the fact that many troops and formations were relatively 'new' for parts of the war, or was it due to the way soldiers were trained? If it isn't true, where might the idea come from? I am aware that American troops were somewhat less willing to use the bayonet than British forces in the American War of Independence - does the idea stem from there?

I'm looking for books that explain the life during the medieval ages and how things were done, in various spheres (constructions, tactics, battles, costumes, speech, etc).

Thanks!

Other than the word itself "fascism" being a political movement. Imperial Germany (and earlier, Prussia) had undoubtedly had a strong, super-centralized (comparatively, at the beginning of its existence) model that emphasized military service and obedience to the state as being very high priorities, so what distinction is exactly made between the ruling style of the Kaiser and the Fuehrer? Other than the fact that one title is a hereditary and the other is an appointed one. In addition to the fact that Germany between World War 1 and Nazi rule had a brief interregnum of democracy; is the only distinction made between Fascism and "Prussianism" who's in charge/the way by which he gains that power?

[deleted]

Did this not put it's friendly relations with NATO in serious jeopardy? What were the reactions of the world's major powers to Sweden's aid?

Edit: I am aware he traveled to Barbados, but most geographers consider the Caribbean to be a part of North America. I'm curious as to whether he visited England or France, as did Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.

Hey all,

I'm currently working on a position paper about William the Conqueror, and I found a book that perfectly discusses something I am looking to discuss, but the book was published in 1902. I believe that I want to use the book regardless in my paper, but my professor has asked for four sources. I'm having a hard time deciding if I want to use this as one of those four sources or if I want to find a different one and have this one as a supplementary source. What would y'all do in my position?

Thanks!

Today's announcements by Elon Musk of his desire to get the cost of a trip to Mars down to $200,000 per person got my coworkers and I thinking. When people were first signing on to colonize the Americas, what was the cost per person? Is there any way to equate that to current dollars? When did it really become "afforable" to cross the Atlantic?

Battlefield 1 showcases modern combat, I know its a video game and has a faster pace but was all of world war 1 dependent on trench warfare?

I work a pretty demanding job. 50-70 hours a week and during those weeks where I do 70 or more hours I'm mentally exhausted at the end. Now lets say you're the President of the United States. Seven days a week you wake up and from the time you open your eyes until the time you close them for bed you are The President. It doesn't end. Is burnout an issue historically?

I've seen some contemporary accounts of the event from an English perspective, but I'm curious to know what (if anything) was thought of this abroad. I would also be open to hearing more about this event generally, as the wiki article on it is relatively sparse.

(Also, "tsunami" is just a best guess, at this point -- there seems to be evidence that it might instead have been a storm surge. I am no oceanographer, though!)

And why other enemies Greeks fought with weren't able to do the same?

Our history teacher mentioned it, and said it could have been the reason George Washington was so secretive, didn't have any children and why Martha burned all their personal letters. Has there been any new evidence as of late?

Moby Dick famously depicts the titular whale attacking and destroying ships. I am aware of the Essex being sunk by a whale in 1820, but not any other such attack. Did whales attack more ships than the Essex? Were such attacks regular, and did whalers have a (justified or not) fear of being attacked by their prey?

Could the United States have actually taken over the country if they refused to open itself up to Western trade? Did the United States have the resources to do this? And if so, was there enough political will to make it happen? What was the plan if Japan continued to isolate itself, despite Perry's ultimatum?

I've been wondering about the evolution of sex positions names. I do not know enough books and pieces of writing of that time countaining such names, so I really have no idea.

My history professor kept talking about how natives who lived in proximity to European settlements had access to steel items and typically repurposed it for their own weapons but couldn't say for certain whether or not any native tribes were able to learn the methods of acquiring iron and turning it into steel.

When you read primary sources, books, papers and the like what sort of questions do you ask yourself about them? how do you go about approaching these sources?

I am new to the study of history and hoped to gain and insight into thought processes of historians.

In last night's US Presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said "NATO [is] the longest military alliance in the history of the world". Is this true? What others are in the running for that title?