I know about certains battles that had formations and etc, but why some armies didn't tried to use the discipline methods or formations that the Romans used?

I've read about some battles, documentals, movies that there it seems to be a front confrontation and the basic tactics about cavalry flanking, archers behind, etc but why did nobody used the Roman methods of formations?

13th century seems like a decent time for analyzing arms and armor, what with the 100 year war. To my knowledge, chainmail was just beginning to need reinforcement to compensate for the use of crossbows. Spears, clubs, and bows are just ubiquitous.

Could someone provide me a list of examples of people that would be using arms and or armor in the given setting, and explain what they'd have on hand?

Obama's a funny guy sometimes, and I could see Clinton making joke. But what about Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln or Washington?

I know that native americans and south americans were used as well, to a lesser extent but it seems like you'd risk less people dying in transport. Is there some significance to the Africas slave trade?

You would think that considering the Western European Crusader's took on such a long journey towards Jerusalem (with little horses and even less pack animals) that they would have been defeated and killed off somewhere along the way. How is it that the invasion into that region was successful when it is known that they were outnumbered and heavily burdened?

I teach literature at a classical charter school and I'm working through Moby Dick with my 11th graders presently. In chapter 81 of the book, one of the ship's mates comments that a large, ancient whale they are pursuing is worth ~$3000.

Historically, how much money would a whaling ship bring in from this time period, assuming they had a decent run of luck with encountering, harpooning and processing whales?

To put it a third at: do the cultures that have good records, good history, take an inflated view in our historical world view?

I'm working on an assignment [I'm in the ensemble for my school's production of Oliver!] and I have to come up with jobs that are common for the upper, working, and lower classes - 5 each. I can't find anything that sounds credible, if any at all. Do you have any idea of this?

EDIT: I totally meant 'What jobs are common' in the title. Totally mistyped it. Oops.

I was told by my great uncle that this was intentional, as the powers-that-be thought it would be better to match the enemy's physical proportions. My great uncle, small in stature, was in the Pacific theater. My grandfather, taller, was in Europe.

Edited for a typo.

Also:

1. Did people ever try to improve flintlock pistol and muskets with sharper accuracy, longer ranges, amount of black powder put inside the guns or shorter reloading times? If so, when did it began?

2. I'm also very interested in double-barreled and multi-barreled flintlocks (such as the duckfoot pistol), how did people decide that it would be more "practical"? As in, being able to shoot consecutive couple or multiple shots before reloading again? Did people try these same techniques with flintlock rifles and muskets?

3. Regarding double-barreled and multi-barreled flintlock firearms. Did people try to improve cannon accuracy, ranges, amount of black powder put inside them and reloading times? ( such as mortars, broadsides, carronades?) What were the results? (bad, good?)

4. It seems like a pain in the ass to reload a gun between 30 seconds up to even a minute! Would reloading times have been improved in double-barreled and multiple barreled flintlocks as well?

5. Last but not least, when did flintlocks actually began to be replaced with guns such as revolvers and ones like "civil-war era" rifles and pistols? What were the first countries to adopt self-repeating guns into their militaries and navies?

Berlin, being smack dab in the middle of Communist East Germany, was of course surrounded by the Berlin Wall.

How, then, did West Germans get to Western capitalist Berlin? Was there a protected transit corridor? Only by air?

I'm asking because if you think about it, so much of our history is comprised of bloody conflict and people killing each other, that often the good and neutral things are shadowed over. I remember that from learning about history in grade school, is was all about battles and wars to win over certain countries and colonies. It seems that most people only see the subject of History as a bunch of war movie, so thrilling, intense and exciting when it's filled with action and fighting.

[deleted]

Wondering if historians know why she didn't conceive a child. I read that Henry may not have been able to at that point in his life due to the ulcer he had but not sure if that was true or not - not a reliable source. Is it also known if she truly did have an affair?

That's probably an odd way to phrase it, but I'll try explain what I am asking. So I was sort of curious about this after hearing that an NFL team was moving back to LA after moving away originally.I have been watching and learning more about North American sports (basketball and ice hockey) recently and one thing that is strange is the way the teams are 'franchises' and move about relatively often. In basketball for example there are loads of Seattle Supersonics fans who don't have a team anymore, in ice hockey I read that people are waiting for the Quebec Nordiques to come back, and I'm sure there are plenty of others too. It's interesting to me that these teams often don't have any loyalty to their areas/fan-bases.

So what I am asking is basically what are the 'roots' of popular North American teams, whether it's NBA, NHL, or NFL or whatever? For instance sports 'clubs' in Europe are pretty well documented, whether it's rugby, gaa, soccer or whatever sport, their roots are usually as actual 'clubs' (amateur ones, workers clubs etc.) and they gradually grew into the organisations they are now. So where did the north american ones come from? Did they have the same sort of root? Is there any particular reason why there is the difference in outlook between American 'franchises' and European 'clubs', I mean of course they are both businesses but it seems that there is a difference...

Thanks, this was way more long winded than I intended for a relatively daft sort of question haha

Hello everyone.

So I've been doing some research for personal knowledge about WW2 and Hitler in general. In school you're taught, Hitler bad, america went in won in Europe, dropped the bomb, and done. I'm becoming fascinated with the politics behind it, how the American Government played Hitler like a fiddle, and important events, strategies, and what Hitler's plans were.

I've found some very interesting things so far, but its all over the place. I'm wondering if someone can link a great website for information or some books to be able to read to learn about what happened.

So I needed to know some historical inaccuracies about the armor used in the movie Troy(2004). I'm currently writing out an essay about this and require 3 arguments. So far I have battle tactics/strategies that were used during the fight and the fact they used coins for the final rituals even though coins weren't used by the Greeks yet. But I've chosen a my final argument being that the armor and weaponry depicted in the movie isn't actually accurate to what they actually used. This is where I get stuck because because for the life of me I can't seem to find any information on the topic. Also another question regarding tactics and strategy, I read about a thing called the hero's code in which there were rules about using deception and trickery. So it was more of a your guys vs my guys and nothing else. So my question being: In the movie it shows the Trojans counter-attack and they attack the Greeks at their camp, would this be something that was allowed or would this be breaking the Hero's code?