I don't have much more to add. Just wondering how strict the Caliphates were, and if they had their own version of the inqusition.

Sorry if wrong section

EDIT: I remember reading somewhere that the Ottoman empire allowed Christians as long as they paid extra tax or something.

Historians of reddit, here's a dilemma that due to my poor knowledge of google can't full clarify.

Stephen D. Ambrose in his book 'Pegasus Bridge' states that the guy who knocked out the first german vehicle of the war with his PIAT destroyed a tank, Panzer IV I think. The ammo rack exploded, fireworks ensued.

However, Antony Beevor writes in his book D Day that the first one knocked out at Pegasus was actually an armoured vehicle, which was carrying ammunition or something which caused an explosion.

I know it's insignificant and not as fun as the others, just a little curiosity.

Thank you!

I grasp that, prior the Civil War, the abolition of slavery wasn't a clear-cut goal. But there were clearly differences of opinion between the border states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri and the CSA.

What did these states hope to gain by staying in the Union - or fear to lose by siding with the Confederacy?

The only answers I can find talk about right-hand dominance or say the phrase comes from the bible (the phrase being in the bible doesn't make it the origin and does nothing to explain it's meaning) I'm curious if there is a known origin for this phrase. Is there a specific fable or event that explains why someone on your right-hand side is to be so trustworthy?

I am writing a children's novel and would appreciate the answer...thank you very much!

I was going to put more here but I'll leave it alone so it's more open for you guys.

I know it's mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle but it seems inconceivable that a single man could hold back an army of 15000 at all. How likely is it that it was a small group of guards using a shield wall and the story was later embellished?

I searched previous questions but it didn't provide much of an answer.

I know this is a simple question but I have never been able to get a real answer for it.

said by Tome Pires. So the Portuguese did controls Malacca for 130 years, and the Dutch for another 100 years.

Did any of them had their hands on the throat of Venice? It seems to me Venice was doing just fine or am I missing something?

YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHArjua7Sp0LLGEYlAeaNkp8NQRunT7DO2q7nEqD0EmUKCni9hl3h9YXtqqybLvHA

So I can't find anything on these and wikipedia provides little to no information or is even contradicting itself.

I understand that Iran in that period was a mixture of Persian and old Parthian nobility. Many authors refer to Parthians as being divided into seven clans: Who were they? Where the clans like cadet branches of the Arsacids? What happened to them after the Islamic conquest? Where the Sassanian period Parthian clans the same with the Arsacid period clans? Or was this all made up in the Sassanian period for legitimacy of their rule. And lastly: How were they different from other nobility?

Why is it that we never hear about this sort of thing from say, Alexander the Great's times or Napoleons. Were soldiers back then more 'mentally tough'?

Based on what I have read on various ancient armies, Roman, Mongol, Macedon, Arab, Gaulic, etc. Experienced soldiers seemed to be portrayed as more confident, brave, and bold with the more battles they fought.

I do admit I do not know nearly enough. My question is, was Posttraumatic stress disorder a big problem? Is there historical evidence that supports many veterans suffered from PTSD? How were those suffering from PTSD portrayed and treated? In modern times we know it to be a problem. If PTSD was not as prevelant in the past as it is in modern times, what might be the reasons?

EDIT: typo in the title, should be PTSD, not PSTD. Excuse my dyslexia, sorry.

And if you're feeling up to it, the total amount of infantry/machine gun bullets too.