For example:

Stirrup vs. no stirrup.

Plate armor vs. scale armor vs. lamellar armor.

Counterweight trebuchets vs. catapults.

Composite bows vs. single piece bows.

Iron weapons vs. bronze weapons.

How big a role did technology play in pre-gunpowder warfare? Did an army equipped with bronze weapons notice a significant difference when facing one with iron weapons? When did stirrups begin to see use? Is the advantage of plate armor really that great vs. other sorts of armors?

Is warfare really a vertical climb in technology with the one with the most advanced tech the victor? If so, then how did the Chinese lose to the Mongols when one had gunpowder and the other did not?

How easy was it to get in the car and just leave my quotas and food shortages behind? How did I cross borders of other communist countries and eventually reach Vienna, Munich etc?

Every bit of information is welcome (food, clothes, work, leisure, etc.).

I'm curious why the arrival of the vikings did not cause a plague like the arrival of the Europeans. Wouldn't the vikings have similar bugs as the Europeans or was it strictly a question of the livestock?

I'm looking to get a more intimate understanding of what The Troubles were like (specifically during the mid-1970s) and thought that journals and diaries kept during that time would yield the most insight. Unfortunately, I don't know where to go to get anything like that or even where to start looking. I was wondering if anyone here in /r/AskHistorians might be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks!

I've often heard that in the 18th and 19th century Americans were substantially better educated than today. Specific claims include that literacy in Latin was nigh-universal and that everyone had a firm grasp on politics and philosophy. How true is this?

For both Japanese and US forces.

Although I know there were some airmen who were recovered, I have no idea of the scale.

Basically I'm wondering if being shot down over the Pacific was pretty much a death sentence, regardless of if you were able to parachute out.

If two European monarchs were conversing face-to-face or writing letters to one another in a language with T-V distinction, would they have used informal pronouns due to shared rank or formal pronouns out of respect for the other's position? Would the monarch of a less powerful state have needed to be deferential to a more powerful monarch?

Loved the show and want to know what's true, what's false, and what's grey. I tried picking up Ceaser: Politician and Statesmen by Matthias Gelzar but it name drops like no other and I feel lost in the second chapter. Any book recommendations?

My grandpa recently passed away. He fought in WWII but never really talked about his experience. A few weeks after the funeral, boxes started showing up at our house. It turns out my grandpa willed his gun collection to my mom. He was a rancher so it mainly contained hunting rifles and old shotguns, but one of the pistols was Luger with SS markings on the barrel. On the upper part of the hilt by where the grip meets the metal part is a scorpion engraving. I think this is the interesting part.

Ultimately, I would love to know more about this gun's history. I can't make out the serial number because its pretty scratched up but it definitely ends with a "w". Right now I assume he took it from a German during the war but I could be wrong.

Just as a final note, my grandpa used to tell us stories about dating Moshe Dayan's daughter when he was stationed in Israel after the war so incase anyone is going to suggest he was a neonazi collecting memorabilia I promise you that is not the case. Also, I deleted and reposted this because I clearly don't know how to english given the previous title.

Before the violation of the treaty of London, one of the main debates regarding the British position to war in Europe is concerned with the terms of the British obligation to the french. Knowing this did the french move their fleet, forcing the British to honor any agreement made previously.

Was the Enlightenment named afterwards or did people living in that era actually believe they were being "enlightened"?

There are major automobile throughfares around the world today, along with some impressive ones that include animals and bicycles among the lot in Asia and elsewhere. I was just thinking about what things looked like in there past.

Let's say we are in USA before Civil War. Slave escapes from plantation. There were no ID's, so could he pretend, he has always been a "free negro"? Similar question about Ancient Rome. Could fugitive live in another city under fake identity?

The idea of the Czechoslovakians and the Poles (and others) thinking "We're free, finally we're free...oh wait, no we're not" after WWII because the Soviets liberated and then ruled them makes me feel queasy. Freedom is a human right and to taste it only for it to be snatched away just seems terrible.

I understand how life was before the renaissance, but how about during or after.