Hello, i am planning a small project - creating brass and copper ww1 bullet replicas on my CNC lathe. I want to create 5 - 10 different bullets (from smaller to bigger) Can you help me with the ww1 most popular and significant ones?

I'm not sure which domain of History these books fall into so I thought I'd ask here.

• Strategy: A History - Lawrence Freedman
• The Art of War - Sun Tzu
• On War - Carl Von Clausewitz

I tried searching for books with 'Strategy' as a keyword. Most of them, though, seem to deal with business practices. Anyway, are there similar books like these? These books seem to have a philosophical bent to them, which make them enjoyable to read.

If this person was male, was there any talk of passing over Victoria in order to keep the personal union with Hanover? Was the personal union seen as beneficial to Britain?

Now from my understanding, during the 30 year war in the 1600s, the French and English would support both the Protestants and the Catholics during the war because those two didn't want Germany to plunder the Americas like the Dutch, English, Spanish, And Portuguese have been for a while now. I'm just wondering, how the fuck did the monarchs of both countries get away with supporting both sides? I know for a fact that England was a Protestant country at the time, so how did they get away with supporting the Catholics when they were losing?

Also, how did the Spanish even fight in this war? I thought that the Spanish were going into economic decline because the English destroyed the Spanish Armada and the Dutch just recently beat that Spanish ass so how did the Spanish afford to join the war?

Also, were the French protestant or catholic... And how did they manage to get away with supporting either side?

Im currently writing a paper about Nasser, and trying to understand the Arab-Israeli war, and it's pretty complicated.

I understand the British controlled Palestine, and the League of Nations had a charter that Britain could have it for a set amount of years. The UN knew this charter was about to end, and tried to set land aside for the Jews and the Arabs. The night before the charter ended the Jews declared Israel a nation state, then the Arab League went to war with them.

Something I never knew before, was there was actually Jewish settlements there, so they were trying to get their own country.

I'm just not fully getting the Arab League's motives, was it really all religious? Or were they trying to take land from an untested country?

Thanks.

In Elaine Dundy's 1963 article "Stanley Kubrick and Dr. Strangelove" (in the book Stanley Kubrick: Interviews, edited by Gene Phillips), she discusses how being on the set of Dr. Strangelove differs from that of other contemporary studio films. She lists reasons like the "lighting--which incidentally Kubrick does himself--is simpler, what they call 'natural lighting'", the fact that the set itself has a ceiling rather than being open and lit from above, and the actors wearing "tiny concealed mikes on their persons" to avoid the use of booms.

It strikes me that all of these techniques have now become standard but she lists them as if they were unfamiliar at the time. Did Kubrick specifically invent these techniques or were they simply lesser known innovations in the big studio era that Kubrick picked up upon?

Eg, What did Roman Velites do once they fell behind the Hastati, and when they ran out of spears? And what about English longbowmen?

How come pimps are seen in TV and movies as wearing a brightly colored suit with a full brim feathered hat, with gaudy jewelry, and a cane all the time? Did pimps ever dress like that?

Just wondering what historians in general think of Indy Neidell; is he severely biased? Is his information accurate? As a layperson/history enthusiast I find him very entertaining - perhaps not so much as Crash Course' John Green but I really enjoy the episodic format of WW1 blow by blow of the conflict.

[deleted]

I worded my title pretty vaguely, because I couldn't really think of a concise way to put it, or rather, I have one very general question and one very specific one.

I've always been interested in ancient warfare, but just recently started reading about the more specific aspects of it, and from everything I've learned about weaponry back in the bad ol' days, it just makes me wonder how anyone managed to kill anyone back then.

Hardened steel plate armor was borderline impenetrable. The only real way to kill or seriously injure someone wearing such a piece was either blunt force trauma (transmitted through the armor) or getting a weapon, such as a dagger, through the gaps.

This I understand. Armor in the late medieval/renaissance period was extremely protective... so why, in the 15th century, did we start seeing things like the Kriegsmesser become popular? I mean, it's a curved sword. What did that do against armor?

Which leads me to my more general question. I had always thought that it was only really plate that was highly protective, but it seems like mail and even leather could protect extremely well against cutting attacks. So why were curved swords ever popular in the first place?

The obvious answer that springs to my mind was that armor, even relatively simple armor, was very expensive and therefore difficult to obtain, but I have since learned that that isn't really even true.

I guess I could compress this rambling mess into this: how did anyone ever manage to get dead back in the day, when armor was this protective? Why were swords ever used over a spear or blunt weapon in the first place?

I appreciate that this is a very broad topic. Thanks for taking the time.

There are certain words and phrases I use that my parents generation wouldn't understand and vice versa. Historically speaking that must also be the case and that's how languages evolve. Is there any studies that attempts to quantify this inter-generational vocabulary barrier throughout history and the rate at which it evolves compared to modern times (e.g. how many generations does it take before the newer generation have problem understanding old text?) Sorry if this has been asked before or if this is a better question for the linguistics subreddit. *Edit: "Are there" English is my second language.

Yeah... this is a question I still have.

Everyone I've asked on the internet, including this sub, seems to imply that the root cause of the U.S. Civil War was slavery. However, everyone I know personally who's knowledgeable about history implies that the root cause was federalism, states' rights, et cetera.

I live in Connecticut - the most liberal, Democratic, Yankee place on the face of the earth. I'm not sure if this biases viewpoints in the area one way or the other.

So - could some of you beautiful people explain what you think about this and why? Thanks in advance.

I was walking through some woods today barefoot and it really hurt. Plus there were spikey plants everywhere.

How did people who walked barefoot do it?

I feel like i am being very stupid but why was Normandy is extremly important to take over? Since Normandy was so heavily defended could they not have taken a easier way into Germany?

More importantly, what was different during this expansion from the times of the Mongol conquest/reign? Something tells me the use of gunpowder by the slower-moving yet more powerful Russians made the difference but I've never been able to find any book or article that described the details of their push east.

I know there have been auditoriums of some kind for centuries, but I'm specifically talking about speeches like we see in movies where a king or queen or some military leader stands up to give a motivational speech and he or she is talking to hundreds if not thousands of people. They're out in the open, not surrounded by something that would provide acoustics.

I thought of this question this weekend while at the Renaissance Festival during a big moment when they have the joust. People without audio assistance are having to basically yell and even then only the people nearest can make out what they are saying. And as far back as the "queen" was in this case (she had audio assistance), I cannot imagine that anyone could have heard her.

Is this just a cinematic thing done for dramatic purposes? Or were there large gatherings but where only the people closest to the speakers could make out what's being said?

There would have been increased influence on the continent, a market to trade slaves particularly because the English had banned the Practice. Was it a failure of diplomacy, a sense among established countries that the odds were stacked against the South?