I've been reading Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, and he says that the US had 8 million men mobilized (thought not all of them were actively fighting). Is there a source for maximum army size of the other nations? In particular, I'd like to know the maximum number of troops the British Empire fielded. I know that India had 2.5 million at its peak, and I think the UK proper mobilized 3-3.5 million, but what about the rest of the empire?

It seems like France was allowed to stay as a key player in European politics at the time, even after the French had just invaded most of Europe. They were even allowed to use their army to help put down rebellions in Spain not long afterwards. While I understand that they were working as part of an alliance system to maintain the European balance of power, it seems like the rest of Europe was very lenient. Did France have any fines or restrictions put in place for a certain amount of time?

And how do we know the answer to this?

I've read several answers and was wondering which one, if any, is right?

• he wanted to appease both the Christians and the Pagans since his empire still contained both
• he didn't really convert to Christianity because he did so only at the behest of his mother
• he knew, and wanted, to perform many acts in his lifetime that would be sinful, and wanted to die sinless (since baptism washes away one's sins)

Recently had a friend tell me that the harsh stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles played the main role in causing WWII. I found that pretty simplistic, as there are rarely any scenarios that are so narrowly described, especially when talking about causes of war. Furthermore, I've heard it said that the monetary reparations demanded of the Central Powers were unjust, burdening them far beyond their capacity to repay. Is there truth to any of this??

Hi, I've tried google for the past hour. I read a book about different native american tribes and the interactions the author had with them. One specific thing I remember was that he came across a tribe where 1 in 5 members had white hair. I believe this question falls under historiography. I apologize if it does not.

I'm asking around 11-12th century, and I'm mainly interested in knowing how big of a difference did different sword types make in battles. So like, who'd have a better chance of survival in a battle. The one with the two-handed longsword, or the one with short, one-handed?

What is the oldest work that holds up to modern academic standards?

It's something I've heard people (well, guys) say to each other my whole life, but would it have been a recognizable insult back a few hundred years ago? A few thousand years ago?

Other equivalent phrases might include "suck my dick," "you suck," "you cocksucker," &c.

It seems so easy to strap it down, or apply pressure, or create something that would stunt its growth during adolescence. It seems like a ridiculous legend that they would chop it off... Is there any evidence at all that they would CUT off their breasts?

1500-ish in particular because I am given to understand that this was a pretty good century for both regions generally speaking and still before Europe's great divergence with the rest of the world.