They have the same rank, name, lived around the same time, and Wikipedia doesn't have a page on Abner Small. I need it for a project but I can't get any farther without knowing.

To draw this out more in detail in bulletpoints:

• guards: private, public or unoffical? preventive, investigative or oppressive role?

• murders, burglary, extortion and manhunts?

• courts and vigilante justice? (just to add to this, I heard that in some Germanic countries the lord let his peasents have some sort of unofficial underground court system and that they took their responsibilities rather seriously, your thoughts on that?)

• quests given to almost random strangers by a local lord? realistic?

• grave robbing: Too rare to specifically look for them? thoughts?

• elaborate india jones style traps?

• adventurers? how rich, how poor? travelling into distant foreign land realistic? how big would the language barrier be and would translators be cheap and common enough to overcome that?

• hostility of the natives, just prevent them from entering the city or kill on sight?

• Rogues. Is there anything in the West that comes even close to the myth of the ninja? Whether it may be silently sneaking or wearing costumes and pretending to be someone else to gain entry to hidden places? And let's say at least trained, because I doubt there was demand for someone like that to be permanently employed?

Feel free to debunk other rpg tropes I failed to list here, these were just suggestions and all I can think of for now.

I'm reading Beowulf, and it seems that characteristics of a good king seem to rely on courage, wisdom and generosity. Throughout the medieval period, did these characteristics change? Was a good medieval king in Anglo-Saxon England different from a good medieval king in the later medieval period, and if so, why?

Just like the text says, what made Venice great? How did it last for so long? What was the importance of the Battle of Lepanto to Venice specifically? Did it play any role in the creation of the USA, or the French Republic?

[deleted]

I know that generally, our understanding of historical events improves with time, as relevant documents are released. Have there been any interesting cases where consensus has gone from one thing initially, to another, then back to the original?

Which led to their conflicts

I get that the US was top dog and thus dismissed most British war plans in favour of the American ones. The one notable exception being the invasion of Italy if I'm not mistaken. However? By 1943/44, wasn't it pretty obvious that tensions between East and West were starting to happen?

The whole invasion of France was to stop the USSR from "gaining" mtoo much territory. Why then did the US not decide to follow through with Churchill's plan to invade via Greece so as to stop the communist sphere of influence in that part of Europe? I know we have the benefit of hindsight but in the end all they did was make their job harder for the Cold War.

So I guess does is all boil down to the US wanting to show the USSR it was the main western power, or did Roosevelt really honestly believe he was going to get Stalin to release territories under Soviet influence/power? I feel both Stalin and Churchill knew what was up(the whole percentages agreement) whereas Roosevelt was simply naive in believing he could tame the Soviet leader.

The USSR had already shown prior to the German invasion that it was only interested in gaining a foothold in Europe and thus spreading communism(The invasion of Finland and the partition of Poland immediately come to mind).

Thanks for reading

What is the root and cause for why so many European countries, especially in the middle ages, started to follow this branch of government?

How did victims of tar and feathering react? Did most live. Or were there burns too severe.

Now this may seem (and be) a dumb question, so let me rephrase it.

In modern warfare, with assault rifles, my understanding is that a unit will usually fire straight at the enemy from distance and cover, and thus flanking this unit make it extremely vulnerable (no more cover).

However, if we look at a phalanx, or a maniple, or any kind of crowded heavy infantry, I fail to see why attacking the flank would be so decisive. Those soldiers had their own cover wrapped around their arm (shield), and they could individualy turn around to face the ennemy without risking being shot from the side (not exposed to direct fire like with rifles)...

In fact, such tactics as the arrowhead formation or the echelon formation (or checkered formation) actually put both armies in the situation of mutally flanking each other, should they attack, and I fail to understand why thoses tactics were succesfull...

What am I missing ?

I think I saw this in a TV program a few years back that the Pope of the time confined himself in a semi-sealed room under the Vatican for a long period of time, and surrounded himself with torches and braziers that burnt aromatic substances. Is this true?

I just finished Wild Swans which talks about a childhood in Mao's China, where they thought children of the west were missing out. That got me wondering how the world reacted to Mao's China.

Did they ever manufacture ammunition for firearms out of things like stones or some sort of mineral or metal? I know they didn't really do much mining, no need to. Most rocks that presumably wouldn't have just shattered like jade, are just too hard to be worked into a perfect sphere. Just kind of a weird question I was wondering about.

I understand the concept of nomads, but what was actually the point of looting the coffers of the Roman Empire when that gold couldn't actually be spent anywhere (unless, it could?) I can understand exotic resources like fabrics being used, but would quality of living really improved over time for the average Hun? Is there something I'm missing or was Attila just the world's greatest troll?

Living in China and being married to a Chinese woman, being able to put the culture, politics, etc. into context is important to me. This means I should read and research, of course, but so many of these events - especially from a Chinese perspective (and especially recently) - are so contorted or misrepresented as to be worse than reading nothing in some cases (e.g., the number of deaths from the Nanjing Massacre seem to rise every time it's mentioned). With that, I turn to /r/askhistorians to hopefully get some more reputable, comprehensive - and if it's not too much to ask - compelling sources.

Specific things that I'm very interested in:

• How China and Japan's relationship developed between late 19th century and early/mid 20th century. I imagine books about the Nanjing Massacre and the war would be a huge help.

• An objective inquiry into Mao's rise to power and/or an analysis of his policies and their immediate (and possibly long-term) effects on China. There's one well-known (infamous?) book I read about Mao (can't remember the title), but it seemed to somehow manage an overly-critical, almost sarcastic tone that didn't sit well with me. I don't like Mao, but I wanted an objective book, which this was not.

• (This one's slightly out of the scope of my original question, but still something I'm interested in) China's historical claims over certain territories, especially Hong Kong (in this case, how and for what reasons it transferred hands to and from the British), Tibet, and Upper Mongolia (or whatever the name of the territory that China claims Russia took from them). I'm not interested in the Diaoyu Islands because (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's basically a farce at this point (and I'm tired of hearing about it, honestly). Also, if there's more to Taiwan than "Chinese people live there now," that would be interesting, as well.

Of course, if anyone here is willing to offer up a good response to any of these topics, I'd love to read about it.