It seems like every other nation had a martial ruling class and iconic warriors, like Hoplites, Samurai, Knights, Jaguar Warriors. Did the Chinese ever have these? If so, why aren't they as iconic?

I've heard that one reason the Finns did so well in the Winter War is the fact that they saw themselves as defending Christianity against the Atheist Soviet horde. Is this actually true or did religion just play a minimal role?

My girlfriend and I got to talking about some Civil War history tonight, and I was wondering how our northern neighbor interacted with us during that time. What were their views on slavery at the time? How did they interact with us? Did they favor one side or the other?

Looking for a 90 y/o man who rode a Penny-Farthing bicycle hundreds of miles across Australia in 1971. Does anyone out there have an idea of who this might be? Thanks for any help

I'm reading "Naseby, the Decisive Campaign", and it seems like both King and Parliament set up a lot of little garrisons in the territories they controlled, and then tried to drive away the other side's garrisons by raids on their supplies. Some of these posts were really tiny, as in 100 men. Yet both sides were also mustering field armies of many thousands. Why didn't the field armies just snap up the penny-packet garrisons? Sure, they based themselves in fortified manors and such, but it seems like an army with a formal artillery train should be able to blow some holes in manor walls; it's not like England was heavily castellated at the time. Indeed, before Naseby fight the Royalists did take Lancaster, although that appears to have been a bit of a struggle.

It looks like the average garrison against the average regiment with a couple of guns in support should have been an uneven fight; so why and how were these garrisons maintained?

I mean the ones like the Tuva, Sakha, or Dagestan. Did they not want independence or did Russia stifle their movements or what? Or were they not the same kind of republic as, say, Estonia or Kazakhstan?

I understand that Grant had some impressive victories in the west, before he was called east to take command of all Union armies (and travel with the Army of the Potomac). But Grant's victories at Shiloh came when he was reinforced overnight, and he had superior forces at Vicksburg, whereas we read of Lee's victory at Chancellorsville where he embarrassed a Union force with smaller numbers of men due to his daring tactics and faith in Jackson's abilities.

Was Grant a more skilled general than Lee, or did he prevail based on strength of numbers and materiel? I read accounts of battles at Spotsylvania, the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, and it seems like Grant is unsuccessful tactically, but strikes a strategic blow by inflicting proportionally higher casualties on Lee and redeploying closer to Richmond. I get that a Southern goal was to put political pressure on Washington to force an end to the war and acquiescence to secession (to make the North sick of war), but on the actual battlefield, was Grant a better general than Lee, or was Lee's surrender a forgone conclusion because of differences between North and South?

I'm wondering if there is an agreed upon standard for classifying societies civilized (ex. what types of technologies, cultural standards, etc. would make a group of people civilized).

I think I have a decent understanding of Japanese history and how its culture changed over time, for a layman, but there is (logically) a general lack of information on women in pre-modern times. I've read more than once that the status of women deteriorated rather rapidly during the course of time I mentioned above, but never read any explanation or details. Anyone got any relevant info?

Several follow ups: Are there examples of freemen who are passing through an area being enslaved? Conversely as a slaver, could you just go pick up some travelers? Was it possible to prove you weren't a slave?

If we understand a coup as an abrupt change in the political order, with some degree of popular support and with social and economic impact, led by a determined group of people with common interests, against the current legal and constitutional order (although it is common to find historical examples in which the laws and the constitution are 'bended' to fit the context), has there ever been such an event in US history? If not, what may explain this? Has there ever been any notorious attempts? (I'm from Brazil, and we had plenty of coups and failed attempts throughout our history).

Within the span of several days, 80-200 political rivals and dissidents were executed extrajudicially. How did the German people respond to this?

Popular depiction of Yuan Dynasty (especially from Chinese sources) invariably say it was barbaric, poorly managed, corrupt, and altogether justifiably short-lived.

However, reading Sugiyama Masaaki's works offers an alternative viewpoint, where the Yuan dynasty may be considered the free-est regime of imperial China. Here I'm paraphrasing his basic premises:

1. Yuan has extensive trade connections with the western Arabic world, both on land and by sea.
2. Yuan extracted very little taxation from peasants, deriving most of its wealth from trade tax, making it far more economically advanced than subsequent dynasties.
3. Yuan had far laxer laws and punishments, especially around censorship of speech, especially compared to Ming and Qing
4. Yuan had a far smaller and simpler bureaucratic system that resulted in less overhead and corruption.
5. Contrary to popular belief, Yuan collapsed not largely due to systemic failure, but from massive depopulation from the Bubonic Plague
6. Perception of the Yuan is so twisted because its history was mostly recorded after the fact by Han Chinese historians, who neither understood nor were sympathetic towards the Mongolians' policies.

So what does the scholarly community think about these points, do any of them have merit?

I understand that Anne Hutchinson privately preached these ideas to a wide audience, and that John Wheelwright was essentially her spokesperson in the Boston church. The Boston church eventually became the center of support for Anne's beliefs, and followers maintained that all of the orthodox Puritan ministers of the colony were under a 'covenant of works' as opposed to one of 'grace'. Of course, Wheelwright and Hutchinson were both eventually struck down and banished. Why would these beliefs have been so unfavourable to the government?

I'm sitting here peeling this orange in Ohio that has got to me via WALMART and it's vast, fast, and frankly terrifying network. That network drags these fruits from several states away, if not nations away, and delivers it to my table with barely an effort from me except a little money. A lot goes into that orange. Even people from my own State, but living before cars and refrigeration, and especially during the age of sail, they couldn't just get an orange. Maybe if they were king. Normal people couldn't just ward off scurvy with a few oranges from Florida. The oranges wouldn't survive a journey by wagon from there certainly.

So other than citrus fruits, what have people eaten throughout history to take the place of citrus?

Title says it all. Looking for a good, accurate book. Audio books are always a plus.

No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training...what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.

Are there any specific sources or writings on work out routines? examples of how they trained? what equipment if any they used?

what was prescribed as training methods for specific athletes to prepare themselves? for example: running vs. boxing or wrestling vs. javelin?

If this is completely false, as I imagine it may be with my lack of knowledge regarding ancient economies, what can they better be described as being?

I like to write short historic fiction and I try to do so with great detail and accuracy. So I'm curious, with trade, market availabilities and home grown crops or livestock products, what kind of foods would be on the dinner plate of an average person in say, Britain, c. 1805? Would an average market have tomatoes, or bananas, etc.?

Today we can go to the store and get bananas, avocados, or other more exotic fruits and vegetables at a very affordable price. This makes me curious as to whether 200 years ago or not this was the same. I'm certain that it wasn't, but I wonder which foods would be easily purchased. At a historic site one time, I was able to try a recipe of original hot chocolate, which was a beverage consumed strictly by the upper classes, as its ingredients were super exotic and expensive (if I remember correctly amongst those ingredients, obviously imported cocoa from South America as well as hot peppers were amongst them). For those curious, it tasted nothing like our modern hot chocolate of course. It was very thick, and the flavour is hard to describe. It was interesting and kind of good though. If I remember correctly the recipe was from the 1780s, and was the type that British gentlemen and ladies would enjoy.

In short, what would the diets of the lower, middle, and upper classes consist of at the mentioned time period? What would be on the dinner table of these peoples, both imported and domestic?