In shows and movies it is depicted as very chaotic, and since it was at night/pre-dawn, was there a concern of planes flying into soldiers who had already jumped?

Are push weapons like the katar just not effective or were there other reasons?

I know of white male owners having affairs with black slave women (most of the time being rape). But I’m just a bit curious if it happened with the genders being swapped?

It was an age before photos, but they did have statues, coins, and frescoes. Were these enough to tell people who'd never seen the Emperor et all how to recognize them?

I know that several thousand were killed during the battle and perhaps 1000 committed suicide. What happened to the survivors after the battle?

In the modern day, obviously, if the president found his way into a camp in the middle east, he's well known enough that if someone was impersonating him, it's a Mystique situation, as opposed to a random guy claiming to be him.

This question actually came from an episode of the West Wing, when President Bartlet gives an order to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the chairman relays they order over the phone using what is presumably a specific code reading to verify his identity.

In medieval Europe, prior to universal recognition of the appearance of the leader, was there a similar way of identifying that the orders were coming from the head honcho? Would every platoon leader know what the king looks like and be able to spot my fakery? Would it depend on my dress, my accent, my comportment? Did I have a code phrase I used when giving orders? Did they have to be written and sealed with wax? Could I conceivably get away with this cockamamie plan?

I've watched some youtube videos on this subject, but I'm still skeptical.

1. What did the people of the time or alexander the great eat? what did their diet consist of?
2. Why has King Philip II of Macedon, been found and a tomb related to Hephaestion also, but not Alexander the Great himself or Hephaestion's body.
3. Do you think we will ever find any of their bodies?
4. Why did Saddam Hussien damage what was left of Babylon?
5. where the hanging gardens and the tower of babel real? (I always thought it was a myth).

I have so many specific questions about this time period and this mans life, but I can't find it anywhere, please help me. I am in awe.

I'm aware I cast a wide net in time and location, I apologize.

During roughly 800-1100 lots and lots of people from what is now Scandinavia traveled all over Europe trading, raiding, and conquering. Why did they? It seems like something must have been going on: they were enough people who were motivated and organized enough to conquer Normany and parts of England.

It sounds like there were smaller fireplaces that shared a chimney route? Or is that just the stone shared a pathway, not the actual gap that let the smoke escape?

What about in multi storied buildings in areas like Japan where it was normal for hearths to be in the middle of the room and set into the floor?

As said in the title the objective of the yellow turban rebellion is well known : to destroy the Han dynasty whose corruption was seen as the source of the plagues and floods striking the country (what they would do afterwards is more murky though).

Knowing that why would the White Wave Army come to Emperor Liu Xie's aid in Luoyang and protect him against Li Jue and Guo Si ? Were they trying to find a way out like Zhang Yan (of the Black Mountain Bandits remnants) eventually did ? Did they think they could accomplish the reforms the Yellow Turbans were hoping for with the emperor's favour ?

Also why did they not just kidnap the emperor and instead stayed with him to defend Luoyang ?

In English you of course have people whose last names are professions or places but how do you get a name like "almond bread"?

I'm wondering how true the story about her is. It must be very hard to know the real truth since she was a noble woman. I can imagine the rumors in those times must of been blown out of proportion both due to the hate of the common folk towards the noble family and also various superstitions of the time.

However if she was indeed guilty, i can imagine with her status it would of been quite easy to cover up some evidence or even dismiss some crimes such as a noble family member killing a peasant wouldn't of been considered a crime.

I'm just wondering if anyone knows of some real facts that point to the fact that she is guilty of all her horrific crimes.

Humans have been around for 200,000 years. The world's first civilisation, Mesopotamia, emerged just around 12,000 years ago. I imagine there is no necessary period of time it takes for a civilisation to emerge from the emergence of humanity. Mesopotamia took around 188,000 years to emerge after humans first appeared, but I imagine that was due to different contingent chance events or circumstances that were specific to it. I imagine if things had been slightly different, it could have taken 250,000 years, or 150,000 etc. On the timeline from humans emerging up until the present day, civilisation has only been around for a small proportion of that time - 12,000/200,000, so you could easily imagine the first civilisation emerging much sooner or much later - maybe in 40,000BC, or maybe later than the present day. Why is it then that almost all world civilisations emerged not long after Mesopotamia emerged (not long relative to the 200,000 years we have been around for). Apart from a small number of small remote tribes, there are civilisations everywhere that have their roots from a long time ago, not that long after Mesopotamia emerged, all with their roots within just some thousand of years after Mesopatamia emerged. Why is this? It might make sense that this is because civilisation spread from region to region, but the only problem with this is that my understanding is that in most instances of different peoples meeting, some sort of civilisation already existed amongst both peoples - the native Americans had civilisations, as did the Africans and south Americans when europeans arrived. Wouldn't this all also explain why some civilisations are more advanced than others. If one emerged after 188,000 years and one after 190,000 years, that 2000 years can have a big effect on advancement due to the exponential nature of advancement, but the 2000 year gap can just be explained by minor contingent chance events or circumstances rather than broad general fundamental differences since it's only a small fraction of the total time since humans first emerged.

That was a pretty horrific description of how women are treated by the "Northmen" in general, but that funeral was particularly violent and disturbing with the prolific sexual assaults and murder of a slave girl, and torturing animals to death. Today that would be considered heinous and probably deranged.

Was that really the norm and why?

I recently had this shower thought: what did concubines do once they weren’t youthful anymore? From my understanding, there have been many societies where the most powerful leader (the king, sultan, emperor, etc.) would keep a large number of women as concubines or in a harem for his exclusive personal “use.” What happened to these women as they aged past the ideal youthful concubine age? Did some societies have them traded down to less high end brothels? Or did the kings/emperors/sultans retire them with support or money to live off of? Did they save up gifts from their patron to live off of?

I understand that this question would encompass many societies, but I am just curious to hear any specific examples from history of what happened to these women. I am specifically interested in concubines and not courtesans, by which I mean women who were sleeping with/owned by one powerful man and forbidden from having relations with any other man during this time.

Potatoes seem an ingrained part of most diets, but are relatively new on the scene to my understanding as they were discovered in North America. Was there a traditional root or starch used in cooking before we added potatoes to everything?

So I know the history of napoleon pretty well on a novice level, but marching into Russia just seems like complete idiocy on a militaristic point of view. With the extreme weather's and the russiab army burning everything behind them, he should have noticed it was a doomed attempt.

The only thing I could think of is ego. He could've turned back plenty of times, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. What other possible reason could have left him thinking this shit was a good idea?