I'm watching the patriot (yes I know), but it got me wondering. In the age of line tactics, how did armies meet on the battlefield? Did the commanders have an idea of where the enemy might be and try to maneuver into a good position?

I don't know you never hear about them during that time. it's all about the fighter squadrons and never the bomber squadrons.

To me the Gospels look like a mythologized account of a historical person, because a naturalistic interpretation of the Gospels works too well for them to be a story that was created by religious people.
Would historians consider this kind of reasoning to be support for the historicity of Jesus?
For example, the resurrection appearances seem like a description of snowballing hallucinations by a group of people in a state of trauma and grief: first a hallucination by one or two people, then a group hallucination; encountering a person who they later "realize" is Jesus, ... It doesn't seem like a believer would make up such a story.
I haven't seen much of this kind of reasoning about the Gospels - so I'm wondering why. It does assume naturalism.

From my experience it doesn't taste very good, has little to no health benefits, and requires a lot of effort to make.

How did tea become so valuable and desired in a northern European country like Britain?

Hello, the title says it all! I remember going to a museum and seeing some plate armor which hugged the wearers body perfectly, and used advanced methods of plate overlapping and tucking to cover the joints more effectively without sacrificing mobility. The closest I can come to finding this armor online is a suit for Henry II of France, but the armor I remember seemed even more advanced then this.

So i'd like to ask, what was the most advanced suit of plate metal combat armor ever made?

As you may have guessed, I'm reading Moby-Dick, and all the queer subtext between Ishmael and Queequeg has me wondering how common such practices would have been. Would the inter-racial nature of the relationship have been particularly uncommon/problematic? Whats the reliability on sources for this sort of thing?

China and India are both large, highly populous asian countries that the European colonial powers tried to get their hooks into. This may not be accurate, but I get the impression that now that both countries are free from direct interference in their affairs, Indian culture has been much more affected by the process than Chinese culture has.

I'm talking about things like the Indian government seeming to be based on a British system and using English for many official purposes, while in China, the entire government structure seems to be home-grown, and English has no official status outside of places like Hong Kong. I think that, during the British Raj, armies of Indian troops were formed and fought for British interests, while I haven't heard of any foreign nation forming armies of Chinese troops to use for their own purposes.

Is this impression accurate, and if so, what are the reasons behind it? Did the nations/areas have different levels of national unity prior to colonialism? Did differences in how they were administered as colonies have an effect, or how the process of freeing themselves from colonial influence went?

On another forum, I recently saw the assertion that "it's known that some Viking communities, while predominantly white, had thriving ethnically Mongolian subcultures." I've looked around a bit to try to find any sources for this, but I haven't been able to find anything past "Mongols vs Vikings: who would win?" and people complaining about the casting in the Thor movies. Does anyone here know anything about this?

In the TV series Boardwalk Empire, there is a character who is a WWI sniper vet. His face is disfigured and mentions that this happened in combat. He also mentioned masks and armour worn at the time. Just looking to learn more about it. thanks

What was the plan of action for allied forces after Dunkirk? Did the Allies solely focus on North Africa at that point?

Let's say in the regions around the Mediterranean.

It seems kind of crazy to send someone to prison for treason, yet you allow his military force to remain in place. Why wasn't the government more proactive? Did they not see them as a threat, because at that point the Nazi party was still a small minority?

Were any or many Black people fans of those performers? If those musicians did bring change to the genre, were any later Black performers influenced by them?

I've recently developed a keen interest in learning about Norse mythology, more specifically the events of, and leading to, Ragnarök. I tried to jump in with some Wiki surfing and looking at the Poetic Edda, but that ended up being fairly dense and tough to follow. Are there any good, "beginner level" sources I can go to to learn more about Norse mythology?

The Confederate constitution says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There's debate about what the Second Amendment meant to the Founding Fathers, whether it protects an individual right to guns, what the "well-regulated militia" part means... Is there any consensus on what it meant to the Confederates?

I just read something about Henrici where it was stated that he was one of the only good defensive generals in the Wehrmacht.

I know horns and flags were used but, I'm still at a loss for actual examples of battle orders issued and executed while in contact with the enemy, by the Roman Legions. I find that the fog of war and communicating while under direst is difficult in today's conflicts and can only assume how much more difficult communicating orders during battle must have been for the Roman Armies of the 1st century, CE,