When you see this in photos, what are these little bands that hang from the linothorax or the muscled cuirass?

What I mean is, we know the Norman conquest of England changed the language, and other lasting occupations merged the indigenous peoples greatly affecting the original culture. Did the brief occupation of France have any affect at all?

How dependent was Cuba (and Cuba's economy) to the Soviet Union? and How has the collapse of Soviet Union e/affected them since?

Sorry if the latter part of the question breaks contemporary rules

It seems to me that the West might have lucked out with the Sino-Soviet split in 1960. I've read some of the reasons for this but I'm still surprised that the USSR and China, despite having mutual foes and more in common than not, still decided to bicker between each other rather than work to a common cause.

During the 1800's in Brazil it seems that there was no end to the cruelty used against slaves. Even when slavery was abolished the slaves mostly died or formed slums that are still prevalent today.

Was there a difference in the way Roman slaves were treated?

What was the American perception of the events? Why didn't the United States get involved? Or did they, just not in the same land-grabbing way as the European nations?

I've been interested in the Aztec for some time but have never really known where to look. Are there any general histories out there which will point to more specialised books?

I want to know how explorers in the past communicate with natives of the land without any prior knowledge of their native language?

If so how bad was it? How long? And any good resource material?

In a lot of contemporary paintings, murals, etc, Roman look a lot more like modern day Turks. I know that there was a migration of tribes from the north down into Italy towards the end of the Western Roman Empire, but just wondered if a modern Italian would look anything like an ancient Roman if they stood next to them. Can a majority of the native Italian population today claim heritage back to Roman days?

An image shared to /r/TudorHistory today made me wonder about the reasons for Elizabeth I's elaborate signature. I can imagine lots of explanations - it was the style of educated people of the time, or it was considered appropriately formal for a monarch, or it gave her a few extra seconds of time to spend on her notorious dithering.

Was that style typical of western monarchs of the period, or of English monarchs? Were variations in handwriting class signifiers (among those who could write)?

Was their fortunes demolished? Did they change profession's.

If dropping the bombs hadn't worked to force a Japanese surrender, or the bombs hadn't been ready yet, was there a plan in place to invade?

What would the plan have looked like?

Who would have led the invasion?

When would it have taken place?

Our invasion at Normandy was into an allied country with friendly civilians, how would we have treated the Japanese civilians who would have been hostile to the invasion?

I am aware of the purchase system where the officers in the British Army purchased their commissions, and this sometimes created the situation where they had rich incompetents in command, but to what extent did this extend to the Royal Navy? By some accounts the Royal Navy's officer corps seemed more professional and merit based service, but this is still a class driven system that was hopelessly set against people 'rising above their station'.

I have heard of at least one instance where a British Admiral lost an entire fleet on some rocks due to a navigation error who had the day before hanged a seaman for keeping his own charts, which the Admiral saw as an affront to the King's officers. But this story is a mere anecdote.

How were they compared to the British Army?

EDIT: great responses, thank you! But now I am wondering about the ratings of the ship and the enlisted personel of the army? I know that there were a lot of people who were basically criminals were pressed into service, and that discipline was brutal, but what about the navy? were they mostly fishermen?

I was wondering how did the electoral system work in the HRE? I was reading Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, and I found the idea of a state becoming an electorate a bit confusing. If I understood how the book explained it correctly, basically, when a certain country wins enough prestige with the HRE (through favors to the empreror or some other means), they are rewarded with being an electorate. Then, when there is an election for the new emperor in the HRE, a deal is brokered between the electorates and the Hapsburg family, and countries are able to gain more money or land in exchange for their vote.

Am I understanding that correctly? I don't really understand the point of the electoral system if it's agreed upon beforehand how the votes will be decided. Was this presented as a democracy to the public? Or were the backroom deals common knowledge?

That's it really - Did Madog ap Owain, a Welsh prince, land in Alabama in 1170(ish)? Is there any evidence bar the "Welsh" caves? What do Historians believe to be the origins of the legend?