From what I know the matchlock was the earliest and most produced gunpowder weapon, but why? From what I've read trying to answer this question it sounds like the matchlock was completely inferior to the bow. The matchlock took a very long time to reload, from what I've read 3 to 5 minutes, so a bow is definately going to have a larger rate of fire. If Calvary were to charge a matchlock unit wouldn't have enough time to fire a 2nd volley. The only positive thing I've heard is that, the sound is very loud that it has a large demoralizing effect, but as guN's were normalized that became irrelevant.

Guns can't shoot over terrain like bows, and guns are more expensive to produce, matchlocks. I'm not saying that guns are inferior to the bow, but it makes no sense how the original gun became so popular allowing for improvements, even though it was horribly inferior to the bow. Oh and matchlocks were much harder to fire on horseback, let alone reload. Why would any army at the time pick up a matchlock? Now I know there's going to be a point of how matchlocks could penetrate into armor, and I find that questionable. I believe that the Hojo clan during Japan's civil war, used thick wooden shields to protect their samurai before charging, and I saw some wooden shields used in a Korean movie against matchlocks.

Edit: When I say that I'm not trying to say that guns are inferior to the bow, I meamt that modern day weapons are definately better for killing and waging war than a bow, but the gun In it's youth was terrible and not cost effective.

I recall a scene in some foreign movie I watched where to stop a cavalry charge, the soldiers brought big bronze shields that reflected light from the sun and caused the horses to go blind. Were there any instances of that happening in history or is it all Hollywood/imagination?

I recently got saw the Imitation Game on recommendation, and I've searched this sub for Alan Turing questions already and found two or three threads about it with various criticisms of its historical accuracy, etc. One thing that stood out to me as odd though, is that he's portrayed with pretty much the exact same personality as every other smart man on television or in movies - somewhere between a stereotype of a person with an ASD and Dr. House. One person on one of those threads mentioned that this was inaccurate as well, and from my recollection of it, Turing's portrayal in Cryptonomicon (which I realize is also not historically accurate, since it's fiction) was also quite different. There's a lot out there on his work and his contributions to computer science, but I'm curious about what he was actually like. Is there good information on his personality out there? I mean, it wasn't that long ago.

I was wondering this while watching Louie, and they visit her great aunt who keeps saying, 'nigger toes.'

[7]

Thanks for answering! :)

Where are they? If they don't exist, a secondary question: are there any reasons that of all the middle eastern religions of a few thousand years ago, why was Judaism the most well documented?

EDITED TO ADD I was more interested in "Old" Testament era. Yes, that is also a wide time period, but I am aware (enough) of the many books by Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels that treat Gnosticism and all the "lost christianities".

I'm not aware of similar accounts of, say, the Canaanaite religions, or the worship of Baal, or all those other rival deities that pre- and post-Exodus Jews were warned against. They are especially interesting to me because, unlike the early orthodox response to heretical Christianity, the Old Testament never says something along the lines of, "No, your god doesn't exist", or "Your interpretation of God is wrong"; rather, it's "Don't worship the dark gods" or "Yahweh is better at lighting a pile of wood on fire than your god."

Hello all. I am a history teacher who has a particular interest in Middle Eastern culture and politics. I studied Afghanistan in college, but unfortunately I am no longer a college student and do not have the same resources available to study Iran as I did when I studied Afghanistan. I am hoping you all may be able to point me towards credible, historical books written on Iran. Whether ancient history or modern all are welcome as long as they help me build an understanding of why Iran is the way it is today.

I looked through your suggested reading for the Middle East found on your sidebar and I will look through those books as well. Anything in addition will be appreciated.

I thank you all for your time.

Did Viking weaponry evolve through their hundreds of years of travel and conquest? What made the axe preferable for them?

Also, did normal peasants benefit and what did they think of these goods?

I've been searching for a good single-volume biography on Napoleon for a while. For one reason or another, I've committed to none.

But I'm tempted to buy/read this new Napoleon bio by Andrew Roberts. It has good reviews on Amazon, and is a manageable length.

But I have concerns. For example, my research on the book suggests that Roberts paints Napoleon in a much more flattering light than is typical. I'm worried that his account therefore may not be accurate, but I do have an open mind.

Has anyone read this book? Is it accurate? Is it a good read? Should I try it?

Thanks!

The older brother is a Lieutenant, and the younger brother seems to be a private or a corporal. They are in the same company. As a follow up, was this common in other militaries of the period?

I've been reading a book on the United States Merchant Marines and their role in the war and it got me thinking about all the shipping that was sunk by the Central, Entente, Axis and Allied powers. What were the known environmental and economic impacts of, say, oil tankers being torpedoed or industrial chemical tankers being sunk? Additionally, any good suggested material to read on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

I thought about this while booking a flight from Houston to Boston. Travel has unquestionably become more efficient over the past few centuries. But what about the process of planning travel? How long would it take to make the arrangements for the same journey? If it took 5 months to make the journey (a complete guess) then the same ratio would give me only 5 days to plan. But this seems unrealistic to me, given I would probably have to write letters, gather provisions, etc. So has the efficiency of planning travel actually grown faster than the efficiency of travel itself? This seems fascinating to me.

My main questions are:

How would a civilian plan their travel 200 years ago?

What transportation routes would be used?

How long did hundred or thousand mile journeys take?

Thanks!