I guess going into WWI, I should have said.

More and more, it's been made clear that the conquistadors of Spain's empire were usually outnumbered by their native allies who fought alongside them for their own reasons.

But how did their tactical formations actually work? How were these European ir/regulars coordinated with the warriors of the Yucatan, of Mexico, of the Andes, of the Philippines?

Did they move as units independent of each other or were they intermingled with mixed commands? How did they take advantage of their differing fighting characteristics? Did they adopt each other's attributes?

And considering that they often formed a minority of the forces, how in command were the Spaniards, really?

Any flying machine were they the only ones ? Was anyone else close ?

Additionally, what were the major concessions and territorial losses of the coalition members following the signing of peace treaties?

Any reading material (either articles or books) would be greatly appreciated!

Hello there. I like history and particularly ancient civilizations that seem to have been more civilized and advanced then we expected. Mayan cities, pueblo dwellings, etc. I'm wondering what they did for fun? What is a typical game of any of the pre columbian societies? I spent a good time trying to find something but can't seem to find anything. Apparently a lot of people want pueblo people to be in Civ V haha. I'm hoping on you could quell my thoughts ?

So I was reading about the Inca and the ruins of Moray came up. The book I was reading indicated the ruins were possibly an agricultural experimental station, but what is the evidence for that and is there any consensus for that conclusion in the historical community? The fact that the temperature is very different between the top and bottom hardly seems sufficient evidence to declare a location the site of activities that took the rest of the world another 300 years to consider, and then only after a scientific and industrial revolution. There just doesn't seem to be any other indication the Inca (or anyone else on the planet for that matter) were actively pursuing experimental domestication until the 19th century. It ultimately seems like the theory is ascribing modern motives and ideas to ancient people, which, for whatever reason, the Inca seem to be a target for - this seems to be the other side of the coin to the classic "this is too complex for the primitive natives to have done, must've been aliens."

I was reading my copy of the Icelandic Sagas, and in the Saga of the People of Vatnsdal it mentions that Ingimundur and his crew fought a different Viking crew (Saemun's) with "arrows and stones".

How common was the use of thrown stones among Vikings? How about their use among European armies? Arabic?

Just curious after playing a lot of RPGs and stuff.

I wasn't sure whether to post this to this sub or AskScience, but I figured it was more a history question than a psychology one.

I was listening to a TED podcast that talked about the Stanford Prison Experiment, and I found it very unnerving that there was no mention of why Philip Zimbardo did not face any kind of criminal charges or any other repercussions for his role in this event. A quick Google search didn't bring much up either, all I could really find was Zimbardo talking about how shocked he was about the outcome, as though he himself was also the victim of his own experiment--which is true to an extent, but sidesteps the larger issue of him being responsible for perpetrating extreme psychological torture on test subjects.

Am I missing something here? How was he even allowed to work in the field of psychology after this, let alone make a career out of it? I understand that ethics were very different in the 70s, and that there is a long history of unethical human psychological testing, but don't these researchers ever have to answer for their actions?

I keep hearing sayings about how the United States has the highest rate of incarceration out of every society that has ever existed. How true is this? What about criminals who were exiled, sold into slavery, or executed?

I want to learn more about what life was like for the average German in Nazi Germany, there's so much mythic overlay that it's difficult for me to find a good historical account. Essentially I'm asking for a 'book review' about some historical account of life in Nazi Germany.

Could you please tell me what works you believe are worth reading or watching and why they are worth reading/watching?

(I apologize if this question seems a bit weird or uninteresting, I would be happy to clarify what I mean as I'm not able to frame it appropriately at this point. If someone can help me reframe this question or point me toward a resource it would be greatly appreciated and I would gladly edit it. I also hope the question sticks to the guidelines. Thanks! EDIT - People down voting please consider helping me out here, I'm fairly new to the subject area and would greatly appreciate resources/references I can read and learn more. Am I off topic or does the question reek of crackpot conspiracy?)

Have there been examples of one civilization or culture actively influencing and shaping the direction of another? I'm wondering about the means for such action via debates or public discussion or through written work that is biased in someway.

For example, one culture might finance scholarly work about aspect X of another culture and in doing so create a general attitude about X within itself that would eventually spill over to the other culture.

I can provide a modern day scenario if that helps. Consider a large publishing company that actively seeks out books written by caucasian women about the struggles of "oppressed" south asian women. In doing so, the company creates a body of work that highlights the oppression and therefore permeates a subtle idea of something-is-wrong-with-them-and-needs-to-be-fixed among those who consume the literature. (I write oppression in quotes because I have not defined a point of view and therefore have not defined what oppression is).

During the rise of socialism during the turn of the 20th century, were there ever instances of rich elites, nobles or even landed gentry giving up their incomes and titles to the socialist cause? Possibly renouncing their privileged status to become revolutionaries or similar?

I was thinking specifically about England because I'm more familiar with that history, but any examples would be of interest. I'm thinking generally about the late 1800s to 1920s. If my question is too vague I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it. Any references are appreciated, as I'm very interested in the political, economic and cultural upheaval of that time period generally.

Thank you for your time.

And would it have made a big difference in the war if he didn't?

If anyone knows, I'd also be interested to know how they viewed the different branches in the American armed forces.

Germany mobilized about 3,800,000 in 1914 with a population of 67,000,000. France mobilized 3,600,000 with a population of only 39,600,000! And the peacetime strength of both countries was almost equal with each having around 850,000. (I hope these numbers are about correct)

So why is generally the German Empire seen as highly militaristic and agressive when France had such a huge army?

And as a follow-up question, why did Austria-Hungary have such a tiny army, half of France, with similar population?