I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but my friends and I were camping over the weekend without google in our pockets, and we ended up getting into a debate until 3 a.m. over this question.

Some of the points that were brought up, consolidated from both sides of the argument:

• Most mammoths died around 10,000 years ago, but populations existed as early as 4,000 years ago. The formation of human civilizations during this time span could be a game changer.
• People have the ability to ride elephants, so theoretically they should be able to ride a mammoth.
• At the time mammoths existed, people were preoccupied with survival rather than getting on mammoths for fun.
• Mammoths may or may not have been too big to get on at the time, given available resources.

The debate went on for several hours, and we really did want to arrive at an answer. Any help getting to the bottom of this would be greatly appreciated.

In particular one chapter of A Clash of Kings from Tyrion's POV detailed the order of battle between a Stark and a Lannister army. Tyrion was placed in the weaker Lannister ranks which he notes were mostly composed of peasant conscripts who were barely armed, often having not much more than farming tools with little to no armor and no battle training.

Did this happen much in Early Medieval armies? I know in the Early Middle Ages that there wasn't much of a standing army and that for large campaigns nobles usually levied or conscripted peasants, but to what degree were they armed and trained?

Im aware of the textbook answer, but it never satisfied me. I am curious if there were any other reasons.

There appear to be a great many photos surviving from this time showing women joining various militia organizations. Was this actually common and do we know what percentage of overall forces were women?

Was it limited to certain areas? Certain militias? Specific time frames (such as the beginning of the war with the mass mobilization of the unions)?

Or do we have so many photos of women fighters because it was unusual enough to document?

Or if that's hard to answer, what were some reactions of notable people? I'm particularly interested in not Britain

It is my understanding that Mary wanted an heir desperately, and wanted a Catholic husband, hence why she married her cousin Philip. But is there any speculation on what the plan was if they had conceived an heir? Would that child, especially if it was a Son, be both the King of England and of Portugal jointly? That probably would not have gone over well for the English nor the Portuguese correct?

The ancient Greeks often established cities (aka colonies) on foreign lands in present-day Turkey, Italy, Spain, etc.

But is there any record of conflicts that arose between the Greek colonists and the native populations? Or did the two groups simply just get along with each other?

Thank you!

This may be a picture question, not sure, but I have seen many different renderings of the Sphinx. Is there a historical consensus as the what it looked like in it's pristine state?

I'm watching Band of Brothers and the question is bothering me. A bunch of men didn't like their commander so they all signed a paper saying they no longer wanted to serve as Paratroopers in Easy Company. The Major said he was lucky he didn't have them shot and they were worried that would be a punishment.

Did this really happen? Are there any cases of this, or were these empty threats?

I recently finished reading The Upright Thinkers by Leonard Mlodinow, and in the book, he talks about how essential the university system was in transforming European thought, and that these earlier academics influenced future scientists. The author, in my opinion, did not adequately explain how universities were founded and sustained, though he did an excellent job of explaining the effects of these institutions. The main reason for the university system he used was that Europe had a dearth of professionals after several population crises, and that the universities formed to replace these professionals. I do not think that the stated reason accounts for all the causes of the coming about of universities. I would also like some more practical details about early universities, if possible. With this said, I have a few clarifying questions:

What was geography's role in the formation of universities?

How were the first buildings constructed or bought?

How were the original professors found and convinced to join a university? Were any of them from the Church?

From what backgrounds did the first students come, and how did their backgrounds change in the first few centuries of the earliest European universities?

What did early graduates do for careers after leaving? What portion of graduates went into the Church?

There are more questions that I would like to ask concerning this topic, but I feel as though this post is getting a bit full.

Disclaimer: I am still fairly new to this community. Please take into account that I am trying my best to follow the rules and the suggested format, but that I may not know all the conventions of the subreddit yet.

I assume that cities in the Aztec empire had some sort of marketplace. Was there an established medium of exchange for buying and selling items? e.g. cacao nibs or shells?

Also, what sort of person would be considered wealthy in Aztec society? Would a priest usually be "wealthier" than a merchant? How would a person's wealth be measured?

Without any ancient aliens theories, were there ancient people that believed their gods created other intelligent life on other planets like their own but those aliens were like us in the same way that we invision extraterrestrial life today?

Russian history back to the Mongols has had a lot of influences, would you characterise Russia as being more Eastern or Western in nature, or potentially a mix of both?

Since the English conquered and copulated with half the known world, I'm wondering how accurate the term "anglo-saxon" actually is?

If we were to take a year (say 1900, before the invention of cheap mass transport), what would the average Englishmans bloodline look like?

Should "racial purists" describe themselves as Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Frankish-Gallic-whatever?

The context for my question is as follows: the first settlers arrive to American shores. Armed only with knowledge and the tools they brought, how did the construction of a settlement go?

• How long did it take to build supportable homes? Did they live on the ship while homes were being built? Did they bring tents?

• How did they set up mines and smithies and by (about) how many years after they made landfall? Armed only with the knowledge of smelting and setting up forges, how much effort did it take to set these up? (In this, I may also be complicating how a forge is made; I have no education in the matter.) Is it as simple as assembling stones to make a basin and furnace and then improving it from there?

I appreciate the time; I'm genuinely interested in how communities with very limited supplies created the utilities a town would sport and rely on back home, when all they had was the idea of how to build it, without previous generations having already done the heavy lifting. Please feel free to comment on any structures/utilities, and not just the ones I listed above.

Are there any of these about the Wehrmacht soldiers? All I'm ever able to find are books about the higher ranking officers or the political officials, and that's not what I've been looking for. To put this into context, I'm writing a sort of story and I would like to read more about the personal lives of the Wehrmacht soldiers to better understand them.

I understand that "the Middle East" is a very broad term, but I'm interested in hearing from experts on different Middle Eastern countries.