I'd assume the Europeans seen smoke from fires. They hardly walked into camps and said hello, did they?

So I've been playing Total War: Shogun 2 for a little while now, and there's a unit that has a large peanut shaped contraption on their back. I'm curious to know what purpose they served. They seem detrimental to me. In addition, most units carried a banner on their back. Would this not just get in the way as well? Why not have one banner carrier in the front like almost every other army?

Were there other permanent settlements with over 10,000 people, built between 500 BCE and 1000 CE? The only other cities I know in Celtic-dominated places were built by Romance- or Germanic-speakers.

For example, I remember reading somewhere that Atilla the Hun shows up in the volsunga saga. Are there any other historical figures who show up in mythology (or vice versa, historical records of mythological characters)

I am interested in reading more about this culture but am uncertain of books to try. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Is it even possible to establish whether the Jews inhabited Palestine before the peoples who are know today as Palestinians?

How does their history intertwine?

Any book suggestion on this would be much appreciated!

Same question for dog fights. Any known instances of stray rounds making it down to the ground and causing havoc?

Did people sit in the back of Greek comedies, scribbling the lines down to perform it later on the cheap? Were people cranking out typo-ridden King James bibles on printing presses in their basements?

I can't imagine the urge to obtain media or entertainment for cheaper than the normal price is new, but where did it start?

At the last few decades/centuries of the HRE's existence, did it exist in any way other than in name, as in, did the Emperor have any actual authority and were the HRE's states subject to a central authority, and if not, when did it cease to truly exist, and would that mean that it's 1800+ states were all independent nations at some point?

I've read a little about it, so I know the very basics - you could claim benefit of clergy when accuses of a crime and have it heard by the ecclesiastical courts instead of the civil ones, but there is a lot that I'm still wondering.

• Who exactly was eligible? Ordained members of the Catholic church obviously, but I've found references to laypeople claiming it too.

• Was the advantage in that you were more likely to be found not guilty by your peers in the church, or that punishments were generally less harsh when found guilty? And on that note, what kinds of punishments were handed out?

• Were there any crimes that you couldn't claim benefit of clergy for? Was it possible for the Church to refuse to hear the case and remand you back to civil authorities if they wished?

• Was there much variation in how the practices was administered country to country? ie in France you could expect to be on easy street, but in England you were screwed either way?

• At what point did it start to decline? It seems to have been on the books, at least in some countries, at least through the 18th century, but was it actually being used much that late?

Thanks!

How much more technologically advanced were powers like Castile, Sweden, Austria, France, Venice, and the Ottomans compared to powers like Ming China, Joseon Korea, and the Ashikaga Shogunate?

I'm also interested in the technological level of the larger Islamic World compared to the Far East: Safavids, Mamluks, Delhi, Ottomans, Mali, etc. versus the Far East

That is to say, people who were purely concerned with the states rights issue without believing that slavery was something that should continue.

I'm curious about this, but if I had to wager, I'd say that people like this either didn't exist or were very few and far in between. Some like to say that the American Civil War was first and foremost about states rights, and that slavery wasn't the real issue. But I've always seen that as an apologist's excuse. Southerners certainly had a lot to gain from slavery--it was a well-established institution, deeply imbedded in their culture, and formed the backbone of their economy.

I guess I just really don't buy that the war was fought in earnest over something as abstract and noble-seeming as states rights. But, I'm willing to have my view changed.

My apologies for the easy question... I know it won't spark much discussion but I am having trouble searching Google for the answer. The word 'Poll' ends up skewing the results in the wrong direction.

I checked the rules... hope this doesn't violate anything. Thanks in advance!!

I'm currently studying the language while trying to immerse myself in German culture. What are some accurate, up-to-date, works that can give me a good idea about the history of the Germans people? Thanks.