In WW2, France surrendered immediately when the Nazis were about to take Paris, but in the Hundred Years War continued to fight even as the English besieged Orleans. What was going on there?

I put it very simply here, and I also do not know any specific numbers or facts off the top of my head about this subject. but I'm wondering what are the main historical reasons behind their massive population? Obviously they have the largest land mass, but relative to other countries China is much higher. Why is this?

On a similar note, indias population density is extremely high. Has this been this way historically over time? Have theses regions / areas always had high populations?

Does it have to do with resources? Cultural familial practices? Government policies?

Thanks in advance reddit!

Destroyers used to carry many torpedo tubes intended for launching torpedo attacks against surface ships, however nowadays all the torpedoes carried by destroyers are for ASW purposes. Why and when did this change? Are torpedoes launched by surface ships against other surface ships not effective anymore?

I'm kind of dubious of the claim because it sounds too good to be true. it exactly the kind of thing you'd want to able to say if you wanted to convince people he made up everything in the book of Mormon

Edit: for the record I’m not a Mormon and I think smith probably did make everything up. I’m just dubious of this one claim

I would assume that since the French could take a coastal route to St. Petersburg, there would be less attrition and a shorter route, and all the coastal cities such as Riga and Reval could be captured as well, and if the Russians burned everything down, then they could just go back to Poland and resupply?

Unless my history is off, I thought St. Petersburg was the capital of Russia from 1721 to 1918 or so, and 1812 is between those 2 numbers.

I used to fervently believe this, now I'm doubting and just curious from a neutral perspective.

When Model T production was in full swing, Ford absolutely dominated the U.S. car market. And yet, by the thirties their lead had evaporated and GM's Chevrolet brand topped the sales charts for decades thereafter. (Only in the late eighties, thanks mainly to the Taurus and a parade of uninspired GM products, did Ford climb back into first place.)

How did FoMoCo blow its seemingly insurmountable lead during the reign of Henry Ford?

When I was a kid in Utah, I remember hearing something about some fellow who had a theory that horses hadn't been wiped out but were part of the ecology of the pre-Colombian world. The piece of evidence I can recall supporting his position was that it took the Kurgan(?) people of the Asiatic steppes 2,000 years to develop horse culture and the Blackfoot/Crow/Cheyenne et al, were able to get horses, breed them, and develop a sophisticated culture in less than 300 years after horses were re-introduced to North America by the Spanish colonies in New Mexico.

How accurate and solid is the timeline for the development of horse culture in the Great Plains? How certain are we that horses became extinct in the pre-Colombian era? What are the metrics for establishing this? Thanks horse-storians!

How accurate are the movies in respect to the lives of those in the ports and the Pirates themselves?

I was laying in bed the other night and thinking about random stuff when this popped up in my head for reasons I have forgotten.

I just know that out of all the former European Powers and a few others, albeit while they might not be Super Powers any longer, are still completely relevant in today's modern society whether it is art, music, culture, or political influence.

Except for Spain. I don't think I have heard a single piece of news, or well anything at all in that Country, in my entire life other than in history books when I was a youngster in school. So what the hell happened to it so fast and why did it become so humiliatingly irrelevant in today's modern world?

According to wikipedia, Rameses II had an "aquiline nose and strong jaw line". Pictures of his mummy also show a fairly wide mouth. But contemporary statues of him show a much different face. Was this artistic liscence? Poor art-manship (hard to believe)?

It is just baffling to me to know that before the poems were written in language, they would be passed on orally. Is their an explanation for how they would pass it on other than "they just memorized them."

And specifically, what circumstances led to a political cartoon being the most relevant image, as opposed to an actual photograph or a realistic (non-caricature) drawing? I could understand New York scandals being big news in Europe, or American authorities alerting their Spanish counterparts to be on the lookout for Tweed, but I would expect both of those to result in actual pictures of Tweed. Why a political cartoon?

I'm not sure if this should be under ask science or ask historians, but uh, yeah, this confused me. You can't hydrate yourself with alcohol, it's just going to dehydrate you. So how would this have helped?