What types of troops were used in western Europe during period and what were their functions (I understand this might be quite complicated but even a general answer would be helpful)?

As far as I can find the armies were made up of archers/crossbowmen, men at arms and knights. Were Men at arms used as the standard infantry? I'm also seeing references to more basic infantry (pike/billmen) but I can't find where they fit into everything else. Of course I'm not a historian so if I'm way off please correct me.

Was Churchill aware of FDR's paralysis before their in person meeting? Was this information kept secret until right before the meeting, or was this information passed on earlier on during the meeting preparations via phone/telegram?

How secretive was his paralysis in general amongst other world leaders? Did, for example, the Axis powers know about it? If so, was his disability skewered or taken advantage of at all in any Axis propaganda?

[deleted]

Grenadiers as I understand them were initially formed from the most physically imposing and strong men who could throw grenades the furthest, and after the grenades stopped being used they just became more of shocktroops and elites. But why'd they stop using grenades? They seem like a pretty effective tool for ripping up ranks of infantry.

Currently I'm in college and want to get a degree in history. But what can I do with it? I know I can be come a teacher with it, but from what i understand they make to much money. I know you do the job you love but at the same time you want to make sure your bill are being payed on time. I love history and have a huge buff in it. But I wanted to know what career options there are, and if you in that career what would the day to day life be like?

During the 1600's, what was the price to travel from Europe to the New World? I'm interested in how much each individual would pay, but also how much the trip cost overall (for the ship, sailors, provisions, etc) and how much this would be equivalent to in modern money. Does anyone have any answers relating to this? Thanks!

?

As the German bombing of England started in 1940, roughly how many British people fled the country to elsewhere? And where did they go?

People settled the US and Canada because they wanted either religious freedom, political freedom, or economic opportunity, and there were many settlers that were not rich. Did poor Spaniards and Portuguese settle in their countries' respective colonies seeking economic opportunity (or any kind of freedom)?

Today Queen Elizabeth II is being celebrated as one of Britain's most hard-working and dutiful monarchs, and she has helped to keep the monarchy popular with the public despite many setbacks. But was the unexpected ascension of a 25-year woman to the throne viewed with trepidation in 1952? We have all seen the cheering crowds at her coronation, but was there any disquiet? Was the untested Elizabeth perceived to be a potentially weak monarch? Did anyone worry that a potentially bland and long-lived queen could spell the decline of the monarchy? In short, were there naysayers?

EDIT: Many thanks for the superb answers from /u/SirGuyGrand, /u/Yorkton, /u/The_Alaskan, /u/24carats, and /u/CopperBrook ! I feel I understand the atmosphere of 1952 much better now.

If I could summarize the points made, it would seem that the British public was already used to the idea that Elizabeth would be Queen, and already admired her. Indeed, her youth may have made her the ideal monarch for the new post-war era. The only concerns in court circles came earlier, when there was a perception that the Earl of Mountbatten and the former Edward VIII were trying to exploit the situation to gain power, but little came of this, in part due to Elizabeth's refusal to change the royal family's name to Mountbatten.

I suppose one other point not made below is that the successful reigns of Elizabeth I and Victoria meant that there was already a precedent for young female monarchs becoming popular icons, so that too might have mitigated any sense of unease.

Anyway, thanks again for a very informative discussion!

I'm writing a piece for a school project. It's about the influence of media during the Crimean War. Now I'm looking for newspapers (from England) that reported about the war. I already found some information about the London Gazette and The Times, but that's it really. I would also really like to know who their readers were, to see what kind of people the papers influenced. I don't know if the last question will have such a clear result, as I do not if newspaper readers were loyal to one newspaper.

edit: I'm reading "Crimea. The last crusade" by Orlando Figes and it's a great book. I have already read about gossip magazines like "Morning Advertiser" (in that time the biggest one) and "Morning Herald". These magazines really feed the public with nationalist ideas. They even called "The Times" not-english: (I'm translating from dutch here so bear with me) "The paper is being pressed in English, but that's the only thing that is English. When talking about Russia, this paper is all and all Russian". Other notable paper is the Newcastle Guardian. Really interesting.

Of course there are French papers like "Union franc-comtoise" and "Spectateur de Dijon" but I'm not sure if I want to include those too. My french isn't that good.

Are Sicilians more related by blood with Levantines and Greeks than, let's say, Latins?

(A re-post, I never received any responses)

I'm interested to hear more about the socio-cultural aspects of slavery in the early medieval period were, especially with reference to Europe and Meditarranean countries.

1. How did slavery operate in a legal sense?
2. What was its status?
3. Who was enslaved?
4. Were slaves capable of gaining freedom? If so, what was their social status afterwards?
5. What was the role of slavery in early medieval economies?
6. How did contemporary philosophy and theology make sense of slavery?

I'm assuming he's wearing a laurel, but as much as a Romanophile Dante Alighieri was, would it not be considered strange by other Italians to see him walking around with it all the time?

I mean who, when and how it is decided that A is the first letter and B will come next and Z will be the last one.

Thanks for answering.

Or were they just observers in the space race? Did they collaborate in any way with the Soviets?

Did any Pole go to space? East German help in the program? Slovak land on the moon?

Or did they just watch it on TV just like everyone else?

So far, my searches have brought me either vague descriptions of the written Late Latin and spoken Vulgar Latin of the Italian peninsula toward the end of the Roman Empire and through the Western Roman Empire, and then later histories of the Italian language that start in the 12th century or some documents as early as the 10th century.

What is modern-day Italy's linguistic landscape in the 6th to 12th centuries, under influence of the invading Germanic tribes (the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, etc.)? Throughout what is modern Italy, what is spoken and written? Where does Vulgar Latin place itself in this period (geography and prominence), and how did this situation influence the evolution of Vulgar Latin dialects in these regions?

I am aware of various questions in this sub and the FAQ asking about when Latin died out, when the transition from a Latin to Italian identity occurred, etc., which are all too broadly asked and answered relative to my specific interest at the moment.

I understand this is a fairly pointed subject, so any suggested leads/key terms or ideas/literature would be quite appreciated. I am involved in academia but not in the humanities or linguistics, and my knowledge of the Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages is limited, so I'm somewhat unsure what I should be searching for (what kind of journal or book title keywords would be used), what books or journals would be most relevant, etc.

As the above implies, this is research out of personal interest—not related to coursework or academic research, if there are any such concerns with this question.

Thanks!

It's mentioned in the Bibile that women should cover their heads when praying, and it seems that Catholic nuns do veil themselves. I heard that a century or two ago, women in Europe, especially Southern Europe, commonly wore veils in public for religious reasons like many Muslim women do today. Is that true?

I got sucked into a Wiki-hole today, and learned the first state ratified was Delaware on Dec 7th, 1787. The date lept out at me, and thus did this question. Did the Japanese plan this for any particular reason or was this purely coincidence? It seems kind of poetic that on December 7th the United States begun actually having states, and then chosen to begin (in their mind) it's downfall.

It doesn't matter one way or the other, but it was bothering me. I figured if Reddit can track down the source to pretty much anything porn related, no matter how obscure, that someone might know the answer to this.

Maybe my title was a bit confusing. What I mean was when was asexuality recognised by the general public as something a person could be. Were asexuals persecuted like homosexuals?