I consider myself a very well read man about western warfare from 1776 to 1871 and have many bookshelves full to bursting with books and magazines about the above era. However in all my reading I have never seen any reference to an American equivalent of European grenadiers (Napoleon's old guard, the famed British Grenadiers) and I've never seen an explanation why. I understand they did not actually carry grenades anymore and they were more of a heavier, elite, line infantry at this point but still. Does anyone have any information on this (excluding a few state/city militia units)? So far the only explanation I've been able to gather is with such a small army America never had the men/interest in forming grenadier troops, or the leading politicians considered grenadiers to close to monarchy. If anyone can help me out it would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

Several questions...

1. How rare was lamellar armor? When was it introduced? Is it true that it was introduced to Scandinavia by retired Byzantine Guardsmen? Did Scandinavian armorers know how to produce lamellar or were they reliant upon trade if they wanted to get it? Lastly, during the Viking age, was it more common to see leather or metal lamellar, and why?
2. Did Norsemen, Danes and Swedes ever wear vambraces or greaves? If so, did Saxons and Franks wear it as well?
3. If a warrior was wearing leather armor, would it make sense to wear chainmail underneath? Would warriors wear lamellar over chainmail?
4. (stupid question, my apologies) How rare was mail armor? If a warrior was attired in mail, would he wear a hauberk underneath?
5. In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories series, he describes a Saxon who wears chainmail armor 'pants' (for a lack of a better word) - is that historically accurate?

Thanks

In the books if someone is on trial they can decide to have trial by combat where they fight (or can have someone be their champion) to the death. It is thought of as "the gods justice".

For example, in the context of the Normandy invasions, is it fair to say that the strategy of Eisenhower et al. was to start a western front, to further split and strain Axis forces, and bring about a quicker end to the war, whereas their tactics were to invade the beaches at Normandy and secure a deep water port and a foothold in France? Further down the line, would the strategy of the 101st Airborne be to secure a foothold in France, while the tactics may be to secure a bridge to prevent an attack on the Allied flank?

I've been thinking about feudalism lately and it's similarities to our current society pertaining to status and wealth, and I was curious are there any accounts of individuals of the lower classes securing higher positions in extravagant or clever ways? Clearly the feudalistic system was setup in such away too limit this from happening, but even so, was there anything at all say similar to the fictional character Petyr Baelish from the A Song of Ice and Fire series; perhaps not as a s sinister or clever.

As I understand it, most of the slaves in the United States were brought over as young adults from East Africa by slave traders.

I am curious if there was ever an industry in the US that "bred" slaves state-side. Specifically, people who bought slaves and arranged for them to mate, with the sole intent of selling off their children once they reached an old enough age.

A friend recently posted a quote that sounded so inflammatory that I wanted to confirm its authenticity. I googled it and found many instances of it being repeated but never the actual source. When I mentioned this it started a increasingly contentious thread about what makes a quote authentic.

My friend's position is that if it was in quote marks in a mainstream publication, then it's a quote. I contend that it needs some sort of citation that indicates when and where it was said.

Is there an accepted standard in this field that people follow?

Here is the quote in question: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." Dov Weissglass

What is important to me is to very clearly establish the line that divides hearsay from a confirmed quote. Thanks.

After doing much research from Ancestry.com and other historical Civil War websites, I discovered my great great great grandfather was a part of the 1st Louisiana Regiment Calvary during the Civil War. However, his regiment was supposedly on the Union's side and was not Confederate. It should be known that he lived in Louisiana his whole life and most of my family is from the state.This is confusing to me because Louisiana was of course a southern state so I am wondering how it could be possible that a union regiment came about from a southern state? Is this even possible or am I reading it wrong? There was a separate 1st Louisiana Calvary Regiment CSA as well so it appears as though there was a Louisiana regiment fighting for the union. Were these men confederate seperatists from Louisiana? Were they paid or even acknowleged by the United States government during the war?

Edit: Damnit I goofed up the title.

I'm wondering how softened up the Axis powers were for us by the time we got involved in WW2. Were the russians still on the Axis side, were the Germans too spread out and over extended? Was Japan the only real threat left?

What I'm asking was was this an 80/20 situation where America was just enough to tip the scales and end the war after everyone else did all the heavy lifting?

I hope I haven't offended anyone's sense of patriotism. Its just a question I've always been interested in. I just don't know how to google it.

So, I watched "The Wind Rises" not too long ago, and during the film, the prototype [is showed](Caproni Ca.60), but just like the article said, it failed.

Now, is there any other recorded used of three fixed wings like this thing? Why Caproni even used three, and not the usual two wings?

Putting all morality issues aside, I'm interested in an economic look at slavery in the United States.

What were the costs of slave ownership? There would be the initial capital outlay to buy the slave, plus recurring costs for housing, feeding and so forth. Did the initial cost to purchase the slave dwarf maintenance costs?

How did those costs compare to hiring an unskilled, free worker? Was the calculus ever such that it was economically more feasible to hire non-slave labor rather than use slave labor?

Hello /r/askhistorians. First off I apologize if I am posting this question in the wrong sub. I took the time to read the sub rules and my question seems to fall in a bit of a grey area. So again, I apologize if this isn't the place and wont be offended if my question is removed.

I have read repeatedly all over Reddit that we live in the most peaceful time in the history of the world. I do not disagree with this and am quite happy to agree.

Being the father of a six year old who prides himself on teaching his son in the ways of the world, it made me ask myself: What sort of things would a guy who lived during the time of GK who wanted to raise his son correctly be passing along to his son?

I mean, I try to teach my son to respect the law, have respect for human life, throw a baseball, kick a soccer ball, math, reading, writing etc.

The lessons parents taught their kids during the time of GK must have been morally and philosophically different. I have a college degree and studied history so I'm not a complete idiot but I don't think exact ideological differences in daily life were ever touched upon in detail.

What moral and secular life lessons would have been different from a father to a son back in that time when you never knew who was going to run through your village or town at any given moment and burn everything to the ground?

Again, I apologize if this is the wrong sub but I hope someone can give me some interesting feedback. Thanks again.

I'm not sure if I can trust what I read on the internet, so I'll ask the internet. I know it wasn't quite hidden at the time. "King Elizabeth died and Written James inherited the throne" I believe was the quote. James was also noted for saying "Jesus had his John, and I have my George". Was the King that commissioned the bible we use today really that gay, or is it a myth?

I know ASOIAF gets mistakes when it comes to some medieval aspects, but lords and kings did have standing garrisons, right? I wonder how one would join this garrison if you're not a knight, and how would one be trained? Why didn't everyone join one if it meant pay, food, and shelter? (if it was voluntary)

Thanks in advance!

I'm currently reading William Doyle's Oxford History of the French Revolution and am confused about something. As a preface, I know as much about the French Revolution as perhaps an undergraduate taking an intro course on Western European history. Thus, names like Calonne, Necker, and Maupeou are very new to me, and I'm barely familiar with concepts that are probably fundamental to most historians of France, like the corvee.

Anyway, what exactly were the economic reforms that Calonne attempted to pass through the assembly of notables? Why was he blamed for the monarchy's economic problems when, from what I can gather, those problems were the fault of his predecessor, Necker? Was Calonne simply a scapegoat for France's economic problems?

E.g., a church that is still used as a church, or a home that is still used as a home.

Edit: As a follow up, what would the answer be if religious/ceremonial sites were excluded?

1. The guardsmen were first and foremost Mercenaries, but did they have an official selection process? Or was admission solely reliant upon reputation?
2. Did they have a formalized training process where they were accustomed to Byzantine military formations/tactics? Which leads me to my next question...
3. How much of an impact did retired guardsmen have on Norse warfare when they returned home? That is to say, did they introduce Eastern/Byzantine military tactics/armor/weapons to other Scandinavians?
4. What would most Guardsmen do following retirement? Were there Scandinavians who chose to remain in Constantinople? Was it common to see Guardsmen go on to serve as housecarls (obviously after retiring)?
5. I have read that the Guard was respected by Scandinavians, is that true? How did native Byzantine's feel about the guard?
6. Initially, the majority of the guardsmen were Swedes but eventually Norse, Danes and Icelanders became the majority - why did this happen? And prior to the conquest of 1066, how common was it to see Saxons serving in the Guard? And were Frisians known to serve as well? And is it true Irishmen and Scots even served?
7. Compared to the average Housecarl, how much training did a guardsmen receive?
8. Were most guardsmen Pagan, or did most convert to Christianity?
9. Childish question, but how do any of the sources discuss Harald Hardrada's fighting capability?

And if you guys could recommend any books on the Guard and Harald Hardrada in particular, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

I want a tattoo of a drachma, but there are so many denominations and designs, I don't know which is the "true" coin they would place with their dead to pay their way across the river. (correct me if I have the stories/information wrong)