It seems even when they were both Catholic nations, they almost exclusively fought against each other. Was this some sort of childish rivalry, or was there some greater reason for it? What sort of conflicting interests did they have (aside from colonization), and why did they never try to settle a lasting peace?

The only way i can imagine pushing is to place your shield on the soldiers back whilst a guy behind you does the same to you. This seems like it would be bad for your balance, hurt you, maybe even make you fall over. I can't think of anyway to make sense of this during charging.

Is there any accounts of him thinking about it for long hours in the situation room or did he give it the okay as soon as he was advised to do so?

I've seen this in movies and in computer games, and I don't really understand it. I can only see ladders used in terms of siege mentioned in passing.

An easy tactical counter would appear to be to just push the ladder over, which would kill/injure those on the ladder, as well as those around the area in which the ladder fell. I would imagine that climbing up a ladder while carrying weapons and armor would take quite a long time, and leave more than enough time for people manning the wall to simply push it over (or at the very least, snipe those climbing up with arrows, where the top person would fall onto those beneath them, creating a chain reaction).

Why were they effective? Did they simply overwhelm those manning the walls so they couldn't push them over in time?

I saw a documentary on TV regarding this. They said that the Japanese intelligence had knowledge that something along the lines of an atomic bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima. Why was no alarm raised? On the TV they noted this aspect but offered no explanation (they said no one knew why - (but I know reddit thinks otherwise) )

As I understand, military alliances were formed through marriage, and would at times support each other in war. When a lord would raise his levies and begin the march, how did they go about passing through neutral territory?

How did they manage supplies in these neutral lands? Did they forage off the land? And if so, did this upset the owners of the neutral territory they were passing through?

Are there any examples of an army displeasing local rulers by taking supplies from neutral territories?

I know that there were times that the Romans revived at times after some crisis. However how come they were unable to grab Syria,Levant or Egypt back? What did the conquerors do to prevent a Roman reconquest beyond Armenia? Also to narrow things down a bit I'm talking about the time before the Fourth Crusade and maybe a hundred years after the initial Muslim invasions.

I visited my grandparents recently and my grandad told me that hes grandfather served in the Russian army (late 1800s, maybe early 1900) and he saved the money he did in 2 years serving and bought an cow with the money. How much was he paid monthly and how much did a cow cost back then? I am Finnish and so was he if that helps somehow.

I'm curious if anyone here focuses on the history of particular cuisines? In particular, I'm trying to find the roots of Banh Mi (a hybrid of Vietnamese/French style that was influenced during it's occupation). The difficult part I found is that I can't seem to find sources for food origins.

I am aware that this may be better suited in cooking/food sub, but I rather an answer from here if by chance there are some historians that focuses on food. From what I gather the origin seems to fall around 1940-1950's in VN (so I think it's recent enough that it may be documented). My question:

What is the origin of Banh Mi in Vietnam?

I've been binging on EU4 and realized I have a very poor understanding of "pike and shot" warfare that took place during the period. About all I "know" is that the Spanish Tercio was a mixed battalion of pikemen and arquebusiers and that the big question was how many guns per unit.

This begs a few questions

1. Cold steel must have been common enough to justify arming a chunk of your men with weapons to stand around and get shot at. I do know that this eventually led to the development of the bayonet and early bayonet fencing was based on pike drill.

2. Guns must have been terrible! Yet somehow better than a crossbow.

3. That whole thing sounds like a static immobile formation. How did it maneuver?

Thanks!

I've been listening to the Lincoln-Douglas Debates on CD and so far it has been very interesting and insightful. However, Douglas keeps using the phrase "Black Republicans" or "Black Republican Party" and I'm confused about its meaning.

Is he speaking specifically to and about freed black men who are members of the Republican Party? Or is he using "Black" as a label for certain Republicans who advocate emancipation? Or is he using "Black" as a pejorative, similar to the idiom, "black sheep?"

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Douglas completely. Any input would be appreciated.

I'm not an expert on the era, and I'm a bit confused by a couple ostensibly conflicting events:

• 1894-5: First Sino-Japanese War
• 1890s-1910s: Chinese intellectuals study abroad in Japan, form the Tongmenghui, bring down the Qing dynasty
• 1931: Japan invades Manchuria, sets up puppet state, eventually we get the Second Sino-Japanese War

Mostly, I'm confused by the comfort of people like Sun Yat-Sen and Qiu Jin with Japan, when Japan had just tried to invade China. The Tongmenghui were obviously no big fans of the Qing, so was it a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of situation? So much of my understanding of Sino-Japanese relations is colored by the Rape of Nanking that I don't really know much of how the two nations viewed each other before that.

Thank you!

Indeed I would be happy to learn a bit about the history of coins and if there are historical reasons why coins were made square/round. I expect the reason lies in the minting process?

In a well known series "Crash Course World History", John Green claims that military spending has been fairly constant throughout history at between 3% and 5% of the state's GDP.

Is it really that universal? What about small states that had big, aggressive neighbors? Wouldn't they sacrifice more of their wealth to avoid being conquered? What about huge empires like Rome or 18th century Britain that had to defend from external threats, rebellion and were still expanding?

Is it even possible to estimate state expenditures and GDP of pre-modern states given their own difficulty in doing this and chronic problems with tax collection?