Today you can obviously see who has the 'best' army by just looking at the advanced training and equipment certain countries use. 500+ years ago you can see who has the best army by who has the best trained, best fighters, more nobility in giant ass armour etc.
But once gunpowder was invented and in WWI what did it mean to have a good army? You can have good generals and that makes sense but an army itself seems something anyone can do.
Walk at the enemy shoot them and die. You can't exactly be good at that.
As well a lot of people say that at the time of WWI Germany had the greatest army in the world...but that's the same thing there.
I understand my thinking about what involved wars and battles back then is incorrect so where am I incorrect and what makes a good army then?
1 Answers 2015-03-12
1 Answers 2015-03-12
In Eastern Mediterranea, literacy rate remained high until at least 6th century (if I recall correctly. CMIIW though). Bibles were translated to vernacular language, like the Syrian bible Peshitta. Book copies were plenty, as suggested by the fact that destruction of Library of Alexandria didn't actually set us back for hundreds of years.
A situation very different from what we usually know in middle age Europe. The return of rising literacy rate, Bible translation, and books in vernacular language in 16th century Europe then is highlighted as an important development that led to modern nation, such as indicated by Benedict Anderson.
What makes such vernacularism different from the one we had in 2nd-4th century? Did the 2nd-4th century vernacularism have similar impact like the one in 16th century?
1 Answers 2015-03-12
2 Answers 2015-03-12
The source for the money spent was Janes fighting ships of WW2.
1 Answers 2015-03-12
2 Answers 2015-03-12
Referring to this Economist chart, the total number of operational nuclear warheads possessed by the US reached it peak sometime between 1965–67, after which is slowly declined.
Meanwhile the USSR overtook the US in the mid to late 1970s and continued to accumulate warheads up until right before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Does the doctrine of mutually assured destruction hold regardless of relative stockpiles once you pass a certain threshold? Do the differences in total warhead count reflect differences in nuclear doctrine or delivery capability?
4 Answers 2015-03-12
1 Answers 2015-03-12
Was there one? Were there food drives in the US and Western Europe to send food/money? I would guess no, the world seems to be a lot less global then, but I'd love to find out.
1 Answers 2015-03-12
*To the best of our abilities, of course. It's not like we have DNA tests and official birth certificates that go back hundreds and hundreds of years.
EDIT: It doesn't necessarily need to be a line that still exists today. For example, if there is a verifiable genealogy of a family that existed 300 - 1750 CE that would be great, too!
3 Answers 2015-03-12
2 Answers 2015-03-12
An Economist article suggests that China has had about ~200-250 nuclear warheads since the 1980s. What explains why China never wanted to make more?
3 Answers 2015-03-12
3 Answers 2015-03-12
please help me to find some sources aka evidences relevant!
1 Answers 2015-03-12
This question arose in one of my masters history classes and had my professor stumped. Why, after being forced to leave Spain, did the majority of European Jews migrate to Poland and the former Soviet Union?
2 Answers 2015-03-12
I am aware that the Americans had the Regular Army and the Army of the United States (two separate entities) but what about the British, Canadian, French and other allied armies? Wouldn't there be a glut of mid-level and senior officers and NCO/NCMs in the new peacetime armed forces, or did certain people voluntarily take a reduction in rank?
3 Answers 2015-03-12
You'd think that cooperation would help trade, stability, and mutual defense against barbarian tribes. What was the point of warring for centuries to such little effect?
What is so important about Armenia that it seemed to take center stage in many of these conflicts?
3 Answers 2015-03-12
This week, ending in March 12 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
4 Answers 2015-03-12
For example, during the kamikaze attacks of the Battle of Leyte against US escort carriers, were US aircraft engaging kamikaze pilots at low altitude while the Japanese pilots were in their final dives?
I am wondering because it seems like friendly fire would be a major concern for US forces if this were the case. I know that most AA defenses are normally in layers with interceptors engaging at longer range and surface-to-air fire being a last line of defense in most cases, but I couldn't find anything specifically about US doctrine for naval battles involving aircraft from this time period.
2 Answers 2015-03-12