I'm reading The Iliad, and in the battle scenes many soldiers, after killing an enemy, try to strip the armor off of their fallen foe. This often leads to their own death, as a flying spear or rock can kill them, but it seemed important enough to risk it.

I understand that we don't know much about the Trojan War (if it even happened), but presumably Homer is referencing a practice that was common in wars back then. Was this a common practice back then? Did the common soldier not have armor, or was their armor so cheap that any time they had a chance to get a new set they tried to? Was it to collect tokens of all the men they slayed?

In particular I'm curious about North American tribes.

In the old world the spear generally played a pretty centric role in warfare. In China and Japan tactics often included large components of spearmen supported by archers. In Europe, even before the era of pike and shot, bows generally played only supporting role while most of the mixed infantry were armed with polearms.

Was early America the same, or would warfare have looked more like it does in a wild west shootout but with bows instead of guns?

I've recently re-watched HBO's Band of Brothers, The Pacific and a number of WWII documentaries.

I'd love to learn more about what it was like in the German military during the years of conquest, and retreat in particular. I've always wondered how the Wehrmacht was constantly restructuring itself during the total retreats on both fronts during the later months/years of the war.

Thank you.

Bangkok, Yangon, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, Jakarta, KL and Manila all dwarf other cities in their respective countries. The difference is extreme in some cases; Yangon is five times as large as Mandalay, Bangkok doesn't really have anything that comes close. What caused this buildup?

In Islam, the Kaaba is said to have been built for Abraham, but what do historians know about its origins?

Someone asked this question a year ago but if there were any satisfactory answers they've been deleted. I have been watching 11.22.63 and it's got me curious. I have no opinion on what actually happened but this bugs me. Unless he was an American agent all along how could he be allowed to reintegrate back to the US so easily? This was the height of the Cold War. it seems like the equivalent of an American today joining ISIL and then given a free pass to come home.

I was having a talk with a friend and this came up.

While reading about wwii I have come across several american historians that call the war the good war. I know that America did well during the war and it made the country a supper power after the war, but 60 million people died during wwii. How can it be considered good?

I know this is not true for all countries but English and native Americans is just an example.

Something I always found strange in the Total War games was how swordsmen, spearmen, axemen, and so on would always be separated from one another, forming a unit made up of dozens who use the same weapons.

Did soldiers back then actually do that or did did formations have mixed weapons?

Also does anyone know an extremely authentic/realistic reenactment or movie depicting ancient-medieval warfare

Thank you

[deleted]

I've read some books published in the Soviet Union, by official publishers; obviously the ruling doctrine was Marxism-Leninism, but did this ideological requirement ruin any chance of objectivity for historians? Can they be relied upon on some level for non-Soviet readers?

As a side note I also find interesting that Soviet education actually taught Marxism, which would seem to possibly undermine Soviet rule. Was Marxism totally neutered in the Soviet Union?

You always hear people make that accusation, but how true is it actually? And what about related theories like Coke establishing the popular image of Santa Claus?

[deleted]