Lead has a lot going for it in that it's cheap, dense, and easily formed. Was there much experimentation with other materials before people started using it for musket balls etc? Has anything else been used to any serious extent?

I'm watching the Pacific and I'm noticing that a lot of the soldiers' weapons get dropped and left when they get killed or fall down.

Rereading one introduction book for political science and stumbled upon this claim.

I know that the USSR, being something of an outcast, and Germany, being forbidden to build tanks at that time, cooperated in the late-20s to early-30s with armored warfare training and technology, but not much beyond that:

• What was the extent of cooperation?

• How much sharing of strategic and tactical insights was there?

• How much did one influence the other's developments through the '30s? How much can we say was essential, even?

• What effect did this cooperation have on the combat of 1941 onwards? Did it assist the preparation of any one side?

[deleted]

Why were the battle ships in Pearl Harbor like the USS Arizona so vulnerable to a one time air attack in a safe harbor compared to the German Turpitz and other examples of ships that took repeated beatings for months from the RAF?

Considering that both of these nations had similar sort of variables- European settler nations, uncentralised tribes, economies with slave basis how was it that the US became so much more of a powerhouse when compared to Brazil?

As an example, how would a peasant in feudal England learn about the more intricate laws that applied to them? Would it just be by the spoken word? And if so were they often left unaware of laws? Was ignorance of the law a justification for breaking it?

Specifically, around the 11th and 13th centuries, what could we assume a peasant, living in medieval England would have known? Perhaps one living in a farming community inhabited by other peasants, a lord, and perhaps a church head as seen at Wharram Percy. Would they have any knowledge about the Roman Empire that existed a millennium before? Would they have known who the ruling king or Pope would have been? Or did the extent of a peasant's knowledge only involve agricultural techniques and animal husbandry?

Thanks!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. It seems like every decade I've been alive, a major power declares their intent to arm/train "freedom fighters" in a strategically important nation or proxy war. Right now the US is the primary offender, but this seems to be modus operandi of many major powers throughout modern history.

My question is - are there examples where this actually worked?? Here I'd define success as "achieving a strategic goal, and the armed dissidents didn't become/lead to a whole different strategic problem in a decade."

I am currently waiting to see the opera Tannhäser because I was introduced to the music by the cartoon "What's Opera Doc?" Did these cartoons have a noticeable interest in keeping young people interested in Classical music? At least in the 50s and 60s.

I was discussing this with a friend, and he claimed that it was the main reason, but when I think about it, it seems like there are always a bunch of other things that played a large role in stopping direct conflict (nuclear/traditional war) in the major conflicts (Berlin, China, Korea, Cuba).

I've recently been doing some reading into the 'Heptarchy' (although I'm aware that many don't consider this a proper term) of England and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I was wondering whether the Anglo-Saxons completely wiped out the Celts, the original people of the area, (which seems unlikely) or whether the Celts were still the majority but just a subservient one. If the latter is the case, I'd be interested to know about whether they were particularly important at the time within England and whether the modern population of England is more likely to have Celtic or Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Generally when considering Civil Wars it comes to me as indicative of a war by opposing sides with different positions for how the state conducts its affairs.

In the case of The American Civil War it seems that its focus was on whether the Southern States would or would not split from the Union.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the conflict differently?

I know it was common for Dominicans and Franciscans to serve, but not much beyond that.

Hi. I do not know much about Cuba or Castro and was wondering if there is any books out there. I would like a book that is good for introduction. But by that i do not mean necessarily a small book - i do want to learn as much as possible.

Is there a service or a individual out there who can as accurately as possible translate a short proverb into ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

It seems like a relatively small piece of steel or iron would do the trick.

[deleted]