It doesn't seem like there'd be a job interview process, so how did the condottieri recruit? Did people supply themselves with weapons, horses, food, fodder, etc.? Were there certain types of soldiers that were in-demand?

In the West, it is regularly taught that Greece (specifically Athens) is the birthplace of democracy, and that examples such as the Roman republic suggest the Western republican tradition can be traced back to antiquity. Are there any examples of Asian countries before colonization where a country was a republic or a democracy instead of a monarchy? I was specifically thinking East Asia (China, Japan, South-East Asia) but other regions (India, Middle East) would be fine as well.

This may be one of the least consequential questions ever asked in /r/AskHistorians, but I am very interested in sci-fi fandoms and especially what the occasionally vicious ST/SW divide has done to those fandoms and how other works are viewed.

Super curiuos about the logistics of getting this precious cargo halfway around the world

I'm looking for details as to what specifically happened during the troubles. Was it like a traditional war where you had two sides fighting for territory. Or was it more of an insurgency like we have in the Middle East. Or was it just a bunch of unorganized terrorist attacks. What methods did the nationalists use against the loyalists. Book recommendations would be great. I'm also looking for real life story's of obscure events that happened during the troubles

I'm trying to get a grasp of the political shifts from the late 12th century onwards and finding it a mess. My current understanding is that there was the Abbasid Caliphate and Ayyubid Sultanate in Arabia and Egypt, and the Seljuqs in Turkey, the Levant, and Iran. Then the Seljuqs split up to form the Seljuq-led Sultanate of Rum, while Iran became the Khwarezmian Empire.

I know that out the other side we have the Safavid dynasty ruling Iran, and the Ottoman Empire ruling Turkey. What I don't know is what happened during the Mongol conquests. My understanding is that with Iran, the Khwarezmian Empire was overtaken and turned into the Ilkhanate. The Ilkhanate took over Turkey as well, ending the Seljuqs. When the Ilkhanate dissolved, a couple decades later Iran was taken over by Timur. That eventually was overtaken by the Safavids. After Turkey was no longer under the control of the Ilkhanate, and it's during this time that the Ottoman Empire really begins. But looking at the dates, the Ottoman Empire began in 1299 (before the Sultanate of Rum was conquered). During this whole time I have no idea what's happening in the Arab states (I'm assuming they're under the control of the Fatimids and various Crusader states?).

I realize this is a very very heavy question and I'm not looking for too much detail. I'm primarily looking for the origins of the Ottoman empire and the Safavid Iran.

From the north to the south, Britain stretches for approximately 700 miles. Assuming I have a single horse, and enough money to buy whatever I need along the way, what's my rate of travel? How many days would it take for a rider to reach from one end of Britain to the other? Assume whatever period you'd like, as well as any supplies necessary. I'm just curious as to the rate of travel in, let's say, the sixteenth century.

The term navy was coined in the 14th century. Though there were fleets of ships that would constitute a navy before then.

Within the last six months I was reading a thread somewhere on reddit about historical misconceptions. There was an incredibly compelling comment about the Treaty of Versailles, talking about France's posturing post Franco-Prussian war and how much of the "reparations" were a political facade (which I've read several texts suggesting the same).

It was a breakdown of fiscal/financial strategy along with historical/political analysis. Did anyone happen to catch this?

If not, I'd like to hear what you all have to say: Was the Treaty of Versailles justified in the form it took? Did Lloyd George tone down the punishments a bit too much? Is it largely German propaganda that we are hearing today when we hear people say "The treaty was inhumane and largely the reason Hitler came to power"? Were the more negative outcomes of the Treaty more linked to Woodrow Wilson's imprint on it with his nation states and empire-busting?

I feel like there are a lot of critics of it but their arguments always strike me as flimsy "slippery slope" arguments. I really wish I could find the post I'm thinking of, though I feel like the person who posted it (or someone of similar mind) might see this in this subreddit.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Israel claimed that Iraq would be able to use the reactor to make nuclear weapons but I have read conflicting opinions on this topic. Considering half the world went to war with Iraq about 12 years later, I want to know how likely is it that Iraq would have had real WMDs in that time-span (assuming their reactor wasn't destroyed by Iran or someone else). Or would the reactor been useless in making atomic weapons?

To clarify: how many stayed on the front lines without being evacuated due to injuries from 1914-1918.