I read the wiki but it doesn't really talk about why they were constructed.

Having just been reading about Jan Žižka, apparently he used armoured wagons with small cannons and muskets on them, and they were extremely effective. I also vaguely recall hearing about Da Vinci creating a 'tank' sort of vehicle, which seems like it would have been quite effective. (Assuming it was not hit by a cannonball, it looked as though it could have been almost unbeatable.)

Essentially, what I'm asking is; why are there not more cases of armoured wagons or primitive 'tanks' being used, when their effectiveness had been shown? Did nobody consider that an armoured wagon be effective? Did anybody think of this idea, and deem it unfeasible, or dismiss it for some other reason? (I'm thinking something similar to the Korean turtle ship here, except, on land.)

Quick edit: I'm aware that the horses could be shot. If anybody could mention how Jan Žižka seemed to make this a non-issue, please do explain. Thanks.

Some might say "The Ottoman Empire" but the Ottomans were mostly Turkey and North Africa. I mean, how did what is today Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. naturally align before European powers started drawing lines in the sand?

The Protestant reformation lead to the Thirty Years War and other religious wars, and much later also contributed to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. So, it's safe to say that the split between Protestants and Catholics led to much warfare. I can't remember reading about the same form of warfare after the East-West schism. I know of the Fourth Crusade and the attack on Novgorod in the Northern Crusade, but these seem to be outliers and does not point to any widespread animosity between Catholics and Orthodox Christians after the East-West schism? So, why was the Schism between Protestants and Catholics more violent than the East-West Schism, or have I simply not heard about Catholic-Orthodox wars?

For example, state for asian americans, state for african americans. I guess the closest thing would be native american reservations.

This topic was been so politicized and romanticized, it's difficult to find a proper academic treatment of this period.

What is the most respected academic treatment of The Crusades? Perhaps there are academics specializing solely on the Third Crusade or the Fourth Crusade, etc.

To be clear, I don't want to read garbage from Dan Pipes. James Gelvin and Eugene Rogan are serious historians; Pipes is not.

Secondly, what do most specialists in this area think of Armin Malouf's "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes"? Is there an academic consensus of this text?

Learning about geometry is a basic tenet of elementary mathematical education, and geometry was part of the trivium. But after 9th grade, I never had the opportunity to study geometry any further.

As far as I can tell, all mathematical research today is non-visual, ignoring shapes or pictoral representation. What caused this shift? Is there simply nothing left in the field of geometry left to study?

And by exactly I mean without any modern preservation methods.

Would a modern person get sick? Were there any microbes that we loose immunity to due to non exposure?

So, to say this quickly, I have always seen monotheistic religions as the bane of progress. It might just be the enlightenment ideals ingrained in me (many a teacher has said that to me), but I have always looked at history as this great work of art that was tainted by these "cults" and their institutions. That is not really what I am here to ask about, but it is rather similar.

I had to write an essay about what I learned in Western Civ. this year. Quite possibly the broadest topic question I have ever received. So I decided to re-look at history, and to try and find a way that religion (or the church and it's institutions) has not been the metallic cage that has imprisoned Europe for so long. The goal I had in mind was to try and prove Enlightenment thinkers wrong. I wanted to try and spin religion so that it is not this bane of progress, but has actually been the one constructive constant in Western intellectual development. In the process, I also wanted to try and find a way that (in the big picture) that the Enlightenment was actually just a continuation of the Church's (and the teachings of the bible) moral values, and that the search for rationality in the Scientific Rev. and the Enlightenment are just a product of centuries of Western intellectual tradition that happened to be focused around Christianity.

Much to my own chagrin, I couldn't do it. Now, this is no longer about the history essay. I changed course and found a much more manageable topic, and finished it two weeks ago. But, from pure intellectual curiosity, is there just something that I'm missing? Is there anyone here who can spin Christianity (and the Church) and The SR and Enlightenment to not be oppositional? Or, does it not even need to be spun at all, and is there just something very skewed about my perspective? Thanks!

Kinda curious given the fact that classicists really a ton on secondary sources for major events and archaeology, and there job consists mostly asking new questions at old sources.Compared to a americanist who has a large volume of primary sources on particular people (enough to form things like the papers primary source compilation books) and a good proportion of the buildings were there ''characters'' walked in survive.
classicist-someone who studies classical antiquity and ancient Rome and ancient Greece Americanist-someone who studies america in this case it's history

I'm really interested on this topic.

As you know, England was heavily a Christian country even during WW1 and WW2 - during such times, there was an Arab population in England (limited) and they faced discrimination on the basis of race.

Yet Jesus, looked closer to an Arab than he did a European. Clearly, most depictions of Jesus in the Western world resemble Europeans however reconciling the fact that Jesus was probably olive-skinned and not white is a very easy thing to do once you think about it.

Are there any accounts of how people reconciled racism towards non-Europeans with the fact that Jesus wasn't white?