Lets say you were just an ordinary foot soldier and you come up against a group of heavily armored cavalry that is bearing down on you. What was that experience like? Did most of the casualties come from the mass of the horses crashing into people, or by the riders of the horses? Do we have any sources that describe what this was like?

From browsing this sub I've learned that Christianity outside of Europe has a much longer history than I thought. Apparently the Church of the East had communities in India, China, and Central Asia, while the Orthodox Church had a major presence in African regions like Ethiopia. From Western civ classes I've learned that Europeans rationalized their colonization and subjugation of more 'primitive' countries on the grounds that they were spreading Europe's superior civilization, technology, culture, religion, etc. When European missionaries arrived in the colonies on these homogenization missions were they surprised to find centuries-old Christian communities already present? Or did they already know about these distant sects and simply write them off as heretics in need of conversion? Specifically I'm interested in the Habesha(Semitic) people of Ethiopia as I understand that a country most Europeans thought at the time as being apart of the inferior "black nations", they had Christian traditions that rivalled Europe. Not to mention a rich history of foreign conquests and seafaring kingdoms that had trade links with major empires such as Persia, Rome and Greece(Aksumite empire)

I understand there was scuffles in prehistoric times but when was the first known battle. I.e battle maneuvers, numbers died wounded.

I'd assume it came with recorded history so my guess is babylonian times?

As the title says, I'm currently sitting in my history class discussing about 'The Blitz', and I didn't get any answer from my teacher when I asked him about it.

So could someone here help me with the topic?

I would love to read several historians of Russian/Soviet history discuss the most compelling/articulately argued/truest to the past biographies of Lenin. Though I am an academic in a related field, I have a personal interest in the early years of the Soviet Union and would like to develop a better understanding of the personalities involved in the Russian Revolution. I realize that the Cold War, during which many biographies of Soviet leaders were written and/or historians writing these works were trained, has colored this historiography. For example, during my undergrad I read The Unknown Lenin by Richard Pipes and I got the sense he was letting his ideology influence his argument a little too much for my liking. So where might a quasi-novice begin if he/she wanted to learn more about Lenin's life and work? Amazon.com reviews haven't been super helpful. Thanks!

In Warren Ellis' Crécy the main narrator, an English longbowman, rails against the Welsh repeatedly, arguing that the reason the English were able to take Wales is that the Welsh could not rally into a unified force.

He says: "You know how the English conquered Wales? One village at a time. Because no Welshman would run to the next village to warn them the English were coming. You all went down warm in the knowledge that the next village would get it too, and they deserved it for being foreign"

How accurate is this, if at all? Or is it simply rhetoric from a deeply xenophobic (and rather sweary) character?

Also, where might I read more about this topic and the rise of England in the British Isles?

If Polish Jewry as well as German Jewry was facing grave problems in the 1930s, why didn't Polish Jews flee Poland at as high a rate as German Jews fled Germany? Because the problems facing Polish Jews were different from those facing German Jews?

One of the blokes who put the USSR flag on top of the Reichstag was a Georgian. Everywhere else in Europe, nationalist tensions were flying high.

How did the various non-Russian people (eg Kazakhs, Georgians, Armenians) in the formerly Russian Empire, now USSR, feel about fighting for their Russian overlords, who I'm guessing they probably weren't best pleased about being ruled by.

Path of Glory (Stanley Kubrick, Kirk Douglas, 1957), and Patton (Francis Ford Coppola , George C. Scott, 1970) are notable examples of presenting a modern concept that I am not sure existed in any ancient popular war lore. Beside Lysistrata I would be curious if there are any other tales of a popular concept of soldiers being so psychology tortured by war to the point that a population and than the army itself realizes they do more harm than good.

tldr: What ancient societies recognized that it was not a good idea to execute "cowards" in battle and how aware were ancient societies that it even existed?

Surely a city that has suffered such extreme loss of population as Leningrad and under artillery bombardment should've been taken, why wasn't it?

The film Lawrence of Arabia is a fictionalization account of T.E. Lawrence based on his memoirs, "Seven Pillars of Wisdom." How much effect did Lawrence actually have during the Arab revolt? Was he a major player with Faisal as portrayed in the film, or was he more of a liaison/observer to the revolt, and not a significant force?

Some other questions. Did Germany make major mistakes in getting through Belgium and whanot? What were these mistakes?