archers have more range and more ammunitions, bows and arrows cost perhaps a little more but even pre-historical men use bow and arrows :x.

Let's mainly focus on the UK and France, but if someone has information about other belligerents.

Millions of male casualties, female casualties are probably a fraction thereof. Millions of wives widowed, millions of unmarried girls suddenly finding it hard to find a husbands (sexual mores were more restrictive than today, friends-with-benefits was not really on the table).

My question is primarily, did millions of women resign themselves to living with cats, or did society become informally more polyamorous, polygamous, i.e. a lot of married guys had mistresses on the side?

I've been looking into it slightly, and it seems that after William I became king, the assorted lords all seemed to have Norman names. If he brought an entire court with him, who were these people previously. Also what happened to the Anglo-Saxon lords?

Greetings everyone , I am working on a comic based on norse myths (mostly on volsunga saga) Any help, link, reference or idea is welcomed. -(1)Where did the Volsungs lived? (North, but where exactly) -(2)How could the appearance, of Volsungs and Gauts (Siggeir and his men) be? -(3)Do we know the names of the son's of Volsung beside Sigmund? -(4)I am looking for a way to name my characters properly , not just names that sound good but also be historically correct. Is there any dictionary or formula? ____Thanks a lot!

I would like to know if the people shown in the movie are Aztecs or Mayans?

If i assume them as Mayans, then it presents a problem because the Mayan civilization collapsed in late 900s(not sure).

If i assume them as Aztecs, then it makes sense with the timeline, arrival of Europeans and Humans sacrifices and all, but the Movie Description says they are Mayans.

What am i missing here?

I keep hearing about how important the baggage train is and in the movie alexander of how the persians reaching Alexanders baggage train at the battle of gaugamela meant the destruction of his army.

So I wonder, What is the "baggage train" for an Ancient greek, Roman and Medieval army?

How important was it to an army and would losing in mean defeat/destruction?

They literally had Paris under siege, if they had wanted something, why didn't they take it then?

i've heard of a semi-recent decline of a long history of seeing education for molding citizens to be replaced by a modern ("neo libreral") focus on education as simply economic. But this seems too simple/like it's probably a gross simplification. What can you tell me good people of reddit?

I'm mostly curious in what strategies the movement used and how the media used to operate that let them so effectively reach the country. Was there as much of a battle against the intentions of all parties involved in all social issues as there is today, or was it more of a bare-boned reporting of "here's this crazy stuff"?

He went to great lengths to have a stronghold in Africa, (Ethiopia) but he allowed an enclave in his own country?

Most of the battles were fought either at sea or in Europe and Asia. I'm wondering if the nations in Africa and South America were neutral or taking sides, if they were having relations with and/or trading with war belligerents, and if any battles happened on their lands because allied and axis soldiers happened to run into each other.

Not trying to be offensive, but I just recently heard the phrase, and couldn't think of any wars the U.S. has been involved in where there was a credible threat to their way of life or defending their way of life was a primary reason to get involved in a war. Maybe it's just my ignorance of history, but is this just rhetoric?