This question has been on my mind for a while now. In Western Europe throughout the 14th and 15th centuries we see the development of increasingly protective armor, mainly in the form of steel or iron plate. I know that the development of the klivanion mainly occurred during the High Middle Ages, but can't find much information as to how Byzantine armor progressed from here.

Do we see advancements that parallel the advent of plate armor in Western Europe, either through the adoption of plate or a refinement of lamellar armor, or did the empire's decline simply halt technological progress in this area? Would a wealthy Byzantine cataphract, for instance, equipped with state-of-the-art armor around 1453 have the same defensive capabilities as a contemporary French man-at-arms wearing the western equivalent?

Why is it that in England the language of the Germanic invaders came to displace the indigenous languages as well as Latin whereas in places like Gaul, Iberia, Italy etc the Germanic invaders eventually came to adopt the local variant of Vulgar Latin?

A little ignorant (and possibly racist) on my part I admit (hey at least I'm calling it out) , but I'm interested to know how feudal Japan and its society changed over the course of over a few hundred years to be the stereotype we see when the latest weird perverted stuff gets posted on the internet about woman's chest drink dispensers that only dispense when you squeeze their boobs, and the tentacle porn, etc.

Was there ever a sustained movement in any other nation to expand its borders to some boundary?

Hello r/askhistorians! My Father and I are planning a driving holiday around eastern europe, but most guidebooks seem to focus on very touristy cities full of boutiques: We are more interested in the USSR and how it has left a mark on the lands, things like museums, monuments, very soviet looking towns and places. If you were going to take your historically interested 16 year old son round eastern europe, where would you take him? We are not planning on going as far as Moscow, we are planning on flying into Latvia or another further off country, hireing a car, and making our way back to the UK through Former Soviet Union nations. I understand that historians like youselves should have better imformation and advice than any standard guidebook. Thank you very much, look forward to hearing from you! :)

To clarify, this is for school, and the answer I want is that it SHOULD take place from around 1200-1800... here's my paper so far, but I'm looking for where to look to find more information. I'm kinda stuck where I am:

The scientific revolution is widely regarded as one of the greatest periods of mankind’s written history. The phrase was coined in 1939 by Alexandre Koyré. According to most modern day historians, it started with Copernicus’s book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543, and went until Newton’s book Principia in 1687. But why is Copernicus considered to have started the revolution? Back in the early 13th century, there were universities being erected all throughout Europe. These places taught seven different subjects: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music theory, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. There are those who say that although there was much groundbreaking work done during the antiquity and Middle Ages, this was merely a preparation for what was to come; but the impact of the hundred and forty four years of the scientific revolution far surpasses anything ever done previously. No preceding time has ever had as much influence as this period of time. However, this reasoning seems to be flawed. Although it’s true that the period from Copernicus to Newton made incredible advances in natural science, it could never have been done without the groundwork laid by the universities of the Middle Ages. Therefore, it would make more sense to periodize this revolution to take place during the period of time known as Old Europe, spanning from 1200 to 1800.

What was taught in the medieval universities that made their teachings so invaluable to what was later named as the scientific revolution? There were many things. The way they looked at the world during the 16th-18th centuries can be directly traced back to what was discussed during the first universities. According to Grant , “The scientific revolution was built upon the foundation of ancient Greek learning and science in the Middle Ages…” First, though, it’s important to discuss exactly what it was that was taught during this medieval era. And could what happened during the scientific revolution have occurred without this?

It seems that not many scientific advancements were made during the Middle Ages, and yet, the contributions that were made did not have to necessarily be scientific in nature. The preparations paved the way for the scientific revolution.

How accurate is the assessment of the Vietnam War in "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward Herman and Chomsky? I'm interested in general opinions, but here are some specifics that I found especially interesting:

That with the Geneva Accords (1954), the French agreed to leave and both the North and the South were planning for unity through a political resolution and that the communists (who were mainly just nationalists) had overwhelming support. And thus would have won any fair elections.

That the U.S. violated this agreement, supported an unelected and unrepresentative government that it called South Vietnam, where in reality most South Vietnamese didn't support it.

That the war was mostly the U.S. bombing the hell out of South Vietnam villages while claiming it was there to save South Vietnam from the North Vietnam communists and "pacify" "rebel" "aggression" in the South.

That while the Paris Peace Accord (1973) to end the war agreed to a political unification (similar to the initial agreement that the U.S. ignored), Nixon and Kissinger deliberately misreported the agreement (and the press followed along) as establishing a separate South Vietnam, allowing them to blame the North as breaking the agreement.

As a side note, how on Earth did our relationship with Vietnam recover to what it is today?

Thanks!

The why is both in reference to the audience's reaction and to Dylan's response to it.

Topic.

1. Just wondering at what century when guns finally replaced sword/axes/armored knights.

2. What were the guns like at that stage. Did you need to manually light a fuse to fire?

3. How long did it took for people to completely adapt into all firearm armies from they were first introduced.

Thanks!

Basically, my parents and their families are from different parts of Montenegro, I'm American, but they consider themselves Albanian (Illyrian) and that's what I've always grown up knowing and gone with whenever questioned. I've tried asking them to explain it before, but they've never really given a concrete answer; they just said that's what they are. I know this is very specific, but would like to hear if anyone has any insight. I don't know how many generations of their families have lived in Montenegro and, if it helps, they are catholic. Perhaps there is a historical or geographic reason for this, I don't know much history about the area or people, just that clans were big for a time and they love Skanderbeg. If this is the wrong place to ask this question, please tell me which subreddit I would have the best luck posting in.