I am wondering if history supports austerity as means of relaunch of an economy.

OK--I apologize if this sounds far-fetched, but I was thinking if there is actually a very good analogy between the Hundred Years' War and the Eastern Front of World War II.

To elaborate on this, in both the Hundred Years' War (which, as far as I know, was actually a series of wars) and in the Eastern Front of World War II, a less populous country (England and Nazi Germany, respectively) was able to initially make very large territorial conquests in a much larger country (France and Russia, respectively). However, in spite of their very large territorial conquests, neither England nor Nazi Germany succeeded in achieving their ultimate war aims (conquering all of France and conquering the Soviet Union up to the Urals, respectively). Likewise, both France and the Soviet Union were eventually able to "regain their footing" and to use their numerical superiority (and presumably resource and logistical superiority as well) to push back against the English and Nazi German invaders and to eventually kick both of these invaders out of France and Russia, respectively. To my knowledge, after the English were kicked out of France and the Germans were kicked out of Russia, neither England nor Germany was ever able to pose a serious land-based threat to France and Russia, respectively.

Any thoughts on this analogy of mine?

Just going off what I see from a Katana, it looks like something better for unarmored and/or horseback fighting, but at the same time I've seen all kinds of, at least Japanese inspired, armors. Were these made out of something really flimsy, or did they use something else entirely, or did they use their swords in a way I'm not seeing right?

I've done some reading on, i guess, line battle era warfare. Mostly pretty light stuff and while I have a decent understanding of infantry/cavalry use I find artillery kind of outside my knowledge.

How was artillery employed during battle? Napoleon was a fan of concentrated fire with a grand battery, and Lee tried that at Gettysburg. What other ways of employing artillery were there and how effective was the grand battery method?

They had solid shot and canister, were there explosive rounds like modern artillery? How did they use these shells in battle?

I've also read a lot about men capturing the guns. How would a group of men manage to physically get close to a battery of guns when the battery has canister rounds available?

In Stone's "Decision-making in Medieval Agriculture," he defines the medieval agricultural experience as one weighted in economic marginalism. That bit--that the medieval agrarian economy was marginal and thus liable to collapse if every ounce of effort wasn't put into farming whatever they could produce--makes sense to me. But it's a very england-centric way of looking at it.

What about in other places in europe during the medieval period? Would the Tuscan countryside have been anything like an english medieval farm in either produce, labor, or technology?

In the election of 1824 Jackson won a clear plurality of the popular vote and in the electoral college. Yet, because Jackson did not win an outright majority, the House of Representatives decided the election's outcome. Led by Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, the congressmen chose John Q. Adams instead of Jackson. When Adams named Clay his Secretary of State, Jackson and his allies labelled the election a "corrupt bargain."

At that point did Jackson have a feasible opportunity to seize power? Did he restrain himself from doing so?

A few points to consider:

Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote and in the electoral college.

The election's official outcome in favor of Adams was viewed by many as a "corrupt bargain."

Jackson was a national war hero renowned for his military prowess and people still called him General Jackson. These points suggest that Jackson had support from ordinary citizens and the military while his opponents were in disarray and possibly colluded to steal the election of 1824.

I realize Jackson's whole thing was preserving the Federal Union but did he or others (supporters and opponents) consider toppling the republic?

Christianity has many branches, as does islam and buddhism etc.

It makes sense because each nation/people would adapt it to their "needs".

Is there an old religion that has remained intact over the ages?

From my basic understanding of serfdom in the middle ages, serfs, unlike slaves, had a certain degree of legal rights. However, it could be easily countered that these rights were in theory only, and in reality, these rights were ignored and lords could do whatever they wished. Are there any examples where a serf accused their lord of infringing on one these rights and later winning that court case (or medieval equivalent)? What was the punishment?

I was listening to NPR a couple years ago and someone was mentioned who taught the Japanese soldiers that Buddhism said it's ok to kill sick animals, and to treat the Chinese the same way, then after that debacle, he ended up in the US teaching Zen Buddhism to beatniks? I don't remember anything other than that, and I haven't found anything via google. :(

Specifically what species do we see now that wouldn't have been here before? Also, as an aside, it'd be interesting to know of species that are now extinct. Is there an instance where an animal was returned to Europe from the New World, still exists there, but has become extinct in the US?

.

I'm wondering about the history of the term 'cowboy'. If it originally referred to ranchers and cattle drivers, how and when did we start using it as the generic word for people in the old west?

I have two questions in regards to a personal project I'm currently working on. That personal project is a two-sided firearms collection that focuses on the standard infantry rifles of the Russian/Soviet military and the United States Army and will be spanning 100yrs. of designs on both.

So, my first question is: for the United States Army, for someone with an 11B MOS (rifleman), is the M4(A1) Carbine or M16A2 the current, official, on-paper rifle? I know many soldiers are deployed with M4s, but I understand many qualify with M16A2s, however. So, is the M4(A1) Carbine the current, standard, on-paper, official rifle for 11Bs or is it another case that's similar to the M1903/M1917 and M1 Garand/M1 Carbine where there were more non-official rifles made and used than official infantry rifles? Are there tons of M4s being used and issued while the M16A2 is still the official on-paper rifle?

That said, if the M4(A1) Carbine is the current-issue rifle for 11Bs in the United States Army, what year was it officially adopted as the current-issue rifle. I know it was adopted for service in general in 1994, but I am referring to when it went on-paper as the official, frontline firearm for your standard rifleman (if it ever did). Also, if the M4 replaced the M16A2, has the M4A1 replaced the M4? If so, what year?

The reason I ask is because my collection is to span exactly 100 years as a rival to my Soviet collection (1891-1991), as mentioned earlier. The 100yrs. isn't going to be the same years for both collections. Meaning, both are not going to be 1891-1991. The reason the Soviet/Russian collection is 1891-1991 is due to their latest infantry rifle, the AK-74M, was adopted in 1991. I decided to just do "current issue and a century prior." Thus, it will span M91-AK-74M. I am trying to do the same with my US Army collection. What is the current-issue, on-paper-official infantry rifle for the US Army rifleman? M16A2? M4? M4A1? What year was it adopted? I am trying to find out so I can know what year "100 years back" would be for the purposes of my collection.

This leads into my second question somewhat, as well: I have heard the M91 Dragoon was the official infantry rifle of the Russian Army in the 1920s up until the M91/30 was adopted. Is this true, or is it yet again a case of "not official, but more of these were made and issued than the M91, anyway"? Only reason I ask is so I know whether I need to find a Dragoon or not as my collections only involve the official, on-paper rifles (M38s, M44s, SVT-40s, etc., will not be in this collection, for example). Already have an M91 and an AK-74M clone, so my start/end dates are sorted out with the Soviet/Russian things, unlike the US Army collection I am currently working on, as mentioned prior. Just wanting to make sure I've got them all covered thus far (M91, M91 Dragoon, M91/30, SKS, AK, AKM, AK-74, AK-74M).

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. My Googling and speaking with friends who currently serve/have served on both sides of the collection has lead me to some dead ends, unfortunately.

If it makes it any easier, here are the planned rifles for each collection. If the lists are wrong, I encourage correction.

For the USGI collection, I will assume the M4 Carbine was adopted in 2012 (found an article saying a ton were ordered in 2012, but it never said if they were actually the on-paper replacement for the M16A2).

US Army

• M1903 (straight stock)

• M1 Garand

• M14 clone

• M16A1 clone

• M16A2 clone

• M4(A1) clone (I believe the only differences here were fire modes as far as M4 v. M4A1 goes, so one rifle could cover both roles)

Russian/Soviet

• M91

• M91 Dragoon

• M91/30

• SKS

• AK (Type-I, Type-II, and Type-IIIs were all just called "AKs" so I will probably only get one model rather than one of each)

• AKM clone

• AK-74 clone

• AK-74M clone

This all seem about right?

Thanks again for any information anyone can give me on this. I figured it'd be easier finding out what the current US Army's infantry rifle is for your regular ol' rifleman, but it seems I can only find a ton of articles mentioning M4s without mentioning whether it's an unofficial switch or an official switch to them from the M16A2.

Also cannot find any information on whether or not the M91 Dragoon was built/issued in large numbers for the same reason: unofficial or official switch.

The three Prime Ministers being Alessandro Fortis, Sidney Sonnino, and Luigi Luzzatti.

I am sorry if this is common knowledge but I am completely clueless about the aftermath of the German invasion. I thought that the Germans had invaded France. I never heard of a great revolution that returned France to the French. I would really like to understand better how France went back to France... or did Germany only keep territories on the border?

Good afternoon, everyone. James Brooks contacted me a few weeks ago and asked whether I could be available to answer questions about the history of the Confederate battle flag -- which has been in the news a lot lately.

So here I am!

John