I primarily want to know about the later Aztec armies who would have fought the Spanish conquistadors but any other information about other periods or civilizations is welcome.

In order of importance I would like to know:

• The method(s) of recruitment

• The size of the military relative to the civilian population

• How troops were equipped

• How were troops organized (What was the chain of command, division types, etc)

• was there a (in)formal military doctrine. If not was there still a common set of tactics

Moreover, if it was known a decimation was going to occur, wouldn't that increase desertion rates?

It just seems like a terrible idea to me.

To the best of my knowledge we are the only species on the planet that cooks much of the food it consumes. How did we realize this? Who thought to put meat on a fire? Or that boiling rice made it much easier to eat?

I've never read much about them. The island fighting really didn't lend it self to tanks very well.

I know that the Stuart light tank had around five or eight rounds of canister shot, but it boggles me (at least as an Early Modern historian) as to why it has canister shot in the mid-20th century. Why did it take canister and why didn't any other tanks (at least to my knowledge) not keep a few rounds of it as well?

The Austrian empire itself had too many nationalities/ethnicities in itself and was quickly decaying. It seems obvious that it could not last in its current state. The main part of Austria itself was a German state that was excluded from the unification. There is no question that the Austrians think they are part of greater Germany (as evidenced by naming themselves the Republic of German Austria after WW1, making the allies forbid them from joining Germany).

It seems logical that a great politician and manipulator like Bismarck would try to orchestrate things to weaken and split the Austrian empire (maybe with help from the Hungarians, Slovenians, et al), then absorb the German part into a unified Germany. Also seems like a more natural state for German nationalists.

It seemed as if it would have made sense.

Also, if you have any book recommendations on the early Cold War, I would love to hear about them. Thanks so much.

Seems like a pretty difficult undertaking given how widely it's used, and how closely it's scrutinized by so many groups.

I assumed it was perhaps due to past sporting events having snacks available--thus, for a casual movie, it seemed fitting, but I wasn't too sure. Plus I wondered why they just decided popcorn would be the ultimate movie snack and not something else.

You see this happen once in a while in the movies. An actor become so iconic for a single role that he struggles to find other acting roles afterwards.

Did this ever happen to the actors under Shakespeare?

When people in historical fiction or pre-industrial fantasy settings go out, they almost invariably wear cloaks (travelling cloaks, riding cloaks, etc.), despite the fact that a cloak seems both more cumbersome and less likely to protect you from the elements than a coat. I find it impossible to believe that simple coat-making technology was beyond the reach of these people, so what advantage did cloaks have when travelling? Is the idea of people wearing cloaks constantly until about WWI just completely baseless?

I was watching ancients behaving badly (I know, it has a poor reputation in terms of accuracy) and one of the historians mentioned that while we think of him as Alexander the great, in the east they viewed him as a destroyer, and conqueror of cities, and they called him by a different name. This conflicts with the general narrative I've heard that Alexander was greatly revered by the Persians and Egyptians etc.

So what's the deal? How did the east feel about Alexander? Did they call him by a different name? Was his epithet "the destroyer" rather than "the great" ?