I have a hard time imagining battles from that period... or maybe even a bit earlier. Did all those things exist together in one place? What would a "typical" battle look like? Would muskets (were they muskets?!) be used alongside bows while an armor clad guy came charging towards us with a lance at the same time?

I saw these guys in a movie set in ancient arabia/ethiopia/india This part was in yemen i think

[deleted]

I tried asking this question a while ago to no avail. Maybe this time around I'll have better luck...

James Longstreet very famously said, "It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arrayed for battle can take that position." Longstreet has also been accused of being insubordinate during the Battle of Gettysburg though. On top of that he was a defensive general.

Was Longstreet's opinion the general consensus among Lee's commanders (Division and Corps)?

I realize there's no way to read Lee's mind on that day, but I've been to Gettysburg and looking out from that treeline to the copse of trees, it seems like total madness to march across that field. Then again, I know the outcome.

Furthermore, there seems to be some deterioration of Lee's decision making abilities during Gettysburg as well. I'm citing Pickett's Charge for this again only because it seems he completely ignored the lessons of Marye's Heights. Or perhaps was a bit myopic in that he didn't consider those charges from the Union perspective. As well as some of the decisions he made with regards to delegation. I know he'd recently lost Stonewall Jackson, who he had a habit of issuing very mission oriented orders to.

[deleted]

Did they appreciate his blend of historical fact and anecdotes? Did some outspokenly disapprove of his writing? Was Thucydides inspired by Herodotus to write History of the Peloponnesian War, or did his project arise from his own desire?

Edit (maybe not an edit): the work in the title question is supposed to be italicized.

With so many officers to choose from, why is it obvious that the best, most effective, and most competent Field Marshall of all time was Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC?

Obviously not everyone put whole communities to death, but for those that did, do we have records for how it was done?

It seems like it would be a logistical nightmare, having to round everyone up then go through the process of killing each individual by hand, especially if you had just won a hard fought battle.

Would people allow themselves to be corralled? Did soldiers get assigned a certain quota, in order to divide the labour equally and get it over with quicker? If so, how did the brass check to make sure everyone was killing the required number of people?

If there are records of such things, does anyone stick out to you as doing it more effectively than the rest?

I suppose in the end I'm asking about the logistics of genocide without gas chambers or guns, which is dark as hell, but I'm hoping that the question has a good enough answer to warrant such a morbid topic.

[deleted]

Dear Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen, on this fine day I wish to ask you about the Great and Valiant Battle of Pavia in the year of the Lord 1525 in the vicinity of the Fine Italian City of Pavia where our Gallant Well-Endowed and Chivalrous King, Emperor, Duke, Count, Knight, etc etc etc of Charles V (Or Carlos I if you wish to follow Castilian convention) was able to defeat the similarly Gallant and Chivalrous King of France, who was so appropriately called Francis -- which makes me wonder if this King’s parents had played a prank on him by calling him Francis the Frank of France -- in the Well-Remembered and Well-Celebrated Battle of Pavia.

Now, where was I? Oh, remembering such a valiant and Greatly Romanticized Battle is just so incredible, now I shall get to my actual question. Oh ho ho ho I have not one, but TWO questions now.

My first humble question is as follows. To what extent did pikemen contribute to that Glorious Victory, relative to that of arquebusiers and musketeers?

My second question is on the Chivalry of the Lord, Duke, King, Emperor, etc etc etc Charles V (or once again, Carlos I in Castilla) versus that of that French Frankish Francis King. I was told that they had on several occasions considered to conduct the true test of Chivalry, namely the Duel, however despite my long and hard search through the book sellers of La Mancha, I have not been able to find an account of what must have been an Incredible Duel.

Dear Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish you all the best and thank you for considering my questions.

Professor made this claim in a recent lecture; saying that the CCP's forces enforced extremely strict standards of discipline when it came to treatment of civilians to cultivate support among the population and as a result committed very few rapes, lootings, homicides, etc.

Is this accurate? While the Japanese brutality towards Chinese civilians is well known, how did the KMT compare?

I'm interested in the political and economic reconstruction. I know that denazification was important for the Soviets in East Germany, but what efforts were made in the other Axis allies (Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria)? And what about countries like Albania, Yugoslavia and Poland that were liberated (albeit to Soviet dominance)?

Were any countries treated better or worse?

Thanks!

Looking at Prussian/German politics of the period, it looks like at least for foreign policy, Bismark was pulling strings and Wilhelm just went along. Is this accurate?

Additionally, while I know roughly why it happened, can we infer how much of an effect the falling out of Bismark and Wilhelm II had with regards to the direction of German policy from 1890 onwards?

In other words, why is February only 28? And why are July and August both 31 days, when they are next to each other?

Assryia dominated the ancient near east for centuries, and the capitals were huge cities (for their time). They fielded vast armies, and held great influence. Once they're defeated though, they basically just disappear from history. They no longer carry any political, economic, military, or cultural weight. How did the primary power of their time disappear so quickly? (and I know the Assyrian people didn't literally disappear, I just mean their power/influence)

Did their population get massacred or spread out? Did trade routes move away, cutting their economic power? Was their dominance a smoke and mirrors illusion, based on a much more flimsy military power than it appears?

Or is their disappearance the illusion? Did they actually stay geopolitically relevant for awhile after, but failed to capitalize on it? A slow fade that seems starker in retrospect because they don't manage to make another splash?

edit: Additionally, do any historians here have a good recommendation for a book that focuses on their history?