Hi all,

This was far too long for the recent AMA, so I've reposted it here, as requested.

My understanding is that knights required assistance to get into their armour, and as such had a number of squires. What did these squires do once battle commenced? Did they stick close to their patron, or were they formed in seperate units?

If close to their patron, what were their chances? Presumably they didn't wear anywhere near as much armour (otherwise they'd need their own squires!). Did these squires have significantly higher mortality rates? Would squires be more likely to be ransomed than killed?

How did knights convince their horses to charge spearmen? I assume the lance was longer than the conventional spear, but even so - I can't imagine a horse would be thrilled at charging a wall of spikes. Was it through conditioning, and if so, what conditioning was done?

How much extra baggage was required to keep a knight battle-ready, compared to a longbowman or peasant footsolder? Were there any campaigns that were negatively affected by excessive baggage trains, which probably would have been successful if they simply hadn't bothered to bring the knights?

Is the popular view of English vs French armies correct in terms of knight contingents? My understanding was that, at Crecy, the number of French knights outnumbered the entire English army, which was majority archers and footmen (Although I'm aware there are some notoriously ridiculous numbers thrown around regarding the army sizes at Crecy), and that France could raise more knights than any other country in the world, which (according to conventional wisdom) would have meant they had the superpower army of the day.

Just how practical were knights during siege warfare, as besiegers? Would their baggage train cripple the resupply of the besieging army? What about for assaults?

Is it a massive shame that we don't fight battles with knights anymore, because it's much more fun to watch than people shooting at each other from 200-300meters?

I am very intrested in Johannes Gutenberg and his impact on the modern world.

Why is it that the fall of the Berlin Wall is much more commemorated than the Solidarity movement?

I was driving home from work just now and envisioned some caveman rubbing a really sharp rock against his face for no apparent reason then he suddenly freaks out when his beard falls off. Was curious as to how this actually started.

Quoting Wikipedia...

"In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance commando) of the Reichswehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German Workers' Party (DAP)."

That always struck me as odd.

I have an assignment for my class which is:

I'm a 80 year old Bavarian aristocrat in mid March 1871. I am also a chief advisor for King Ludwig II. Why would I encourage him to Unify (or not) all "German" States?

What would influence my choices? What major events would affect my decision? Does religion play a big role in my decision? What about the south of Bavaria, which is mostly catholic? How does the philosophy and history of the national movement in the German-speaking lands affect my decision?

I need to have a general understanding of all of this, however I'm having a lot of trouble finding good sources.

This probably isn't the right subreddit for this, but there isn't an "AskArchaelogists". In the case of something being found like a Nazi Gold Train, how is the gold ($4.5 billion of it) handled? Does it go straight to the government, is it preserved for historical studies, is it given to the people who located the dig site? I was wondering if I could get a clear answer here.

Did the astronauts use specially produced photographic film or were they shooting commercially availiable film stocks? How was storage of film cartriages handled during the mission? Were their cameras modified to fit the mission needs, and did the astronauts recieve special photography training to aid them in documenting the missions?

Looking through pictures of many of the ancient swords I have noticed that most seem to be "leaf shaped" but as time wears on into the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age they seem to evolve to have parallel edges. Is this observation correct and are there any theories as to why this is?

Hi everyone,

I am currently invested in John Keay's China A History, in which he claims that in 649 Tang China sent a punitive Sino-Tibetan force across the Himalayas and into Bengal as repayment for the hostile reception Chinese Buddhist emissary Xuanzang received during the chaos of the collapse of the Pushyabhuti dynasty of India. To quote the text word for word:

It was thus a joint Sino-Tibetan force that in 649, probably by way of the Chumbi pass between Sikkim and Nepal, crossed the Great Himalaya and inflicted a heavy defeat on Harsha's successors ... The Sino-Tibetan incursion probably affected only a corner of Bengal and had no known repercussions. Though a Chinese assault on Indian territory had been shown to be feasible, it would not be repeated until the 1960s.

My question is why this was the case? Was the rationale for a more hands off approach to India [as opposed to South East Asia, Korea or the Xiongnu/Qaganates] purely economic or geographic? If the Tang Emperor knew his troops were capable of force projection in this region why did neither he nor any successors of any dynasty even attempt such action again?

I was watching a cooking show on southern US cooking and I am wondering what about the history and culture of the US south led to the heavy southern foods and to the obesity crisis the south is facing now? Everything has so much butter and sugar and cream, etc...

I was just watching a documentary about England's navy and their battles and noticed that all the flags had the exact same proportions and sizes in the depictions of the battles. So I was wondering when or even if at some point flag sizes and proportions were standardized and if there are countries not following those standards.

I'm ignoring the very early church because it seems like that would bring up a lot of uncertainties, but is it likely, guaranteed, or very dubious that all bishops descend from a long line of bishops? One act of infidelity might confuse an entire line of kings, but consecration seems a little more documented and hard to fake. Are there any obvious kinks or false fonts that have tainted entire lines of bishops? I can't find much discussion one way or another, but I see a lot of antipopes, legal-but-not-valid affairs, and disagreements that might raise questions about unbroken succession.

I assume some of this is going to seem like speculation because there will be differences in viewpoint over valid consecration, but I don't really have a jumping off point and don't know about any questionable or controversial consecrations.

I always feel this subject isn't really talked about much besides, they died or they got captured and died. what are the most common causes for soldiers going missing and never being found? soldiers going MIA has always been a very interesting subject to me

From what I understand the British created an ingenious system by which the majority of the the population fight each other for favor of their colonial masters at the top of the trash heap. However even at the top of the caste system the Indians weren't really on top because that privilege belonged to the British. So am I correct in assuming that since the British lived outside the laws they made if a soldier raped an Indian woman, even if she came forward, he wouldn't be punished?

If so, what is their legacy today, and why are they remembered less than their Greek counterparts?

If not, why not? What made the Greeks so special?

When one thinks of the major nationalist movements, one generally thinks of a movement spawning from conservative circles. However, in Ireland, Sinn Fein has always been left-wing, as was men such as James Connolly. Why is this?