I'm writing an essay regarding the Shakespearean play Othello and I was intending to make a point out of how it occurs in two locations, one may be symbolic of home, whilst the other of the unknown. My question is, prior to the beginning of the Renaissance (15th century), how much adventuring was occurring? I intend to draw upon how perhaps Shakespeare's symbolism was inspired by the influx of adventure during the Renaissance by the likes of people such as Cristopher Columbus. If anyone has any recommendation as to some other adventurers that would perhaps fit the bill nicely then I'd be grateful to hear about them, mainly because I'm most likely incredibly misinformed and there are some other genuine reason behind Shakespeare's choice of plot location.

Edit I would like to make: I've realised now that "maritime explorer" is probably a more suitable word for an essay.

Did Hitler really trust Stalin enough to leave his eastern frontier lightly protected?

I'm listening to an audio book and the author talks about the Corps of Discovery's interaction with the Mandan Indians who supposedly had light skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, and a language so similar to the Welsh that they could understand each other. Is this completely made up or what?

Taking into account frontier policy, legion deployments, and patterns of economic exchange (among other factors), it almost seems like emperors and the political elite had a well-defined set of "national" interests and were capable of allocating resources on an empire-wide scale to achieve these interests.

I know that Luttwak discusses this in his work Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, but I'm aware of the numerous criticisms surrounding his analysis. I find it hard to believe, however, that most of Roman grand strategic and foreign policies were formed on an ad hoc basis. Do we have evidence that suggests central coordination?

Hello,

Very often I read on reddit (or even in some newspapers) that Hjalmar Schacht was a sort of godsend to nazi Germany, as he single-handedly solved the economic problems left by the Weimar Republic and consolidated the economic basis of the Reich, leading to a close to zero unemployment, facilitating the rearming of Germany, etc. Now I am a bit cautious with these hagiographic descriptions as I noticed that the influential men of Nazi Germany tend to be overly praised on the internet, while they are not as talented as their "legend" pretends (Erwin Rommel being the first one that comes to my mind). Hence here are my questions regarding Hjalmar Schacht:

1. Did he actually "save" Germany in the 30's and accomplished a sort of miracle?

2. Was he actually such a visionary that he saw solutions that nobody else saw?

Every text I have come across uses Lacedaemonia and Sparta interchangeably; the same with Lacedaemonian and Spartan. But it is clear, for me at least, that the name the ancients used were Lacedaemonia and Lacedaemonian. So my questions, if my premise is correct (otherwise please note so), are:

• Why has the name of the place and their people changed, at least for us?
• When, by whom and why was this change introduced?

A friend of mine was discussing with me why is it that the europeans develop this strange tactic of engaging line versus line without cover whatsoever and firing whilst hoping they doesn't kill you in their fire, and exposing oneself to cannonballs and such. I couldn't explain him the reasons because I didin't know them. Why was that the optimal way of doing a battle?

And in such a circumstance would the average person in a village know about it? What about in a city?

I'm imagining during the Soviet era there would have been propaganda to diminish the role of the Kronstadt Sailors responsible for the success of the First Revolution and instrumental in the seconds success in the two previous revolutions retrospectively. But after the fall of the Soviet Union how have they came to be viewed in modern Russia? In particular how is the failure of the third(fourth if you count the civil war) revolution viewed? In the West the third revolutions failure is seen as the failure of the aspirations of the popular movement started in 1917 would the same be the case in Russia?

Nowadays, we put great importance on ancient artefacts from hundreds or thousands of years ago. However, how did people who lived thousands of years ago think of things that were ancient for them. For example, what did the Greeks and Romans think of the Pyramids and other ancient Egyptian structures, which by then were already thousands of years old? Did they think of them as important simply for being very old, or did they just think of them as something outdated and unimportant?

How did a Scottish folk song become so popular around the world (even in non-English speaking countries)?

When did it start to spread beyond the British Isles around the world?

I'm currently writing a little article on the use of missile weapons in combat for /r/fantasy and /r/fantasywriters. Unfortunately, while there are many, many, many English language sources on the longbow's performance, manufacture and tactical use, I've found very little information about crossbows in any period. What I have found, such as the rate of fire of belt spanned century crossbows and their penetrative power compared with the longbow, has been proven false by modern tests^1. Frustratingly, along with incorrect information about the performance of crossbows, there has been a lack of information on how they were used tactically.

So, I've decided to seek help here. Does anyone know of any English language sources - either translations of primary sources or secondary sources - that spends any significant amount of time exploring the way in which crossbowmen were deployed in battle. Preferably such a source would examine the development of tactics in one area over time, but even a generalised overview would be handy.

I'm especially interested in battles where crossbows were properly deployed (i.e. the opposite of Crécy, where they were denied their pavises, unable to spread out fully and possibly were unable to properly load their crossbows due to the mud) against similar numbers of archers (foot or mounted on horse, it doesn't matter to me) and any detailed explorations of the Genoese and the way in which they not only fought, but the organisation of their forces and the politics behind their use.

^1 Videos by Tod Todeschini show a slow, deliberate rate of fire of 3 bolts per minute from a 300lb crossbow drawn using a belt and pulley system, while using a goats foot lever on a similar bow he achieved a rate of five bolts per minute. Separate tests by Andreas Bichler using reconstructed bows of ~300lbs and ~620lbs draw weight showed that the lighter crossbow performed similarly to several 75-80lb longbows used in other tests by different authors. This falls into the extreme low range of militarily useful longbows.

Visited New Zealand and people there referred to the British as Pommies. It seem to have a slight derogatory ring to the tone, but no one would really explain how the practice came about. One person suggested that it may be an acronym for Prisoner Of his/her Majesty (POHM -> POM) since Australia had a huge influx of prisoners. Would love to hear the story behind this. *Edit: Expanded on question...

Could someone please spread some light on this touchy subject?

How was this allowed to happen? Who ordered this horrible massacre to happen, and what happened to the people who did these crimes?

[deleted]