Contemporary European and Japanese armies relied on gunpowder weapons at least as much as these Islamic empires. What made their use of gunpowder noteworthy or special? Did it have something to do with their organization and system of logistics to better supply their armies? That seems likely to me.

I know that the p51 was amazing engineering job, especially that it was designed in less the 30 days (if I remember correctly), but between that and the spitfire as well as other aircraft, which was the best fighter/escort (non jet) during word war 2?

As a secondary question, what would be considered the best/most versatile bomber of ww2

Edit: as per suggestion below, by best, I mean the most maneuverable and which one would be considered the hardest to go up against.

Specifically in contrast to the US healthcare at the time.

1. Would I be guaranteed a hospital bed and free treatment?

2. How would the quality of treatment/care/the facilities be compared to the US?

Basically how would the average citizen get along with a terminal disease in the USSR?

When I was always reading about and learning more about the amazing stories regarding the defense at the ardennes and bastogne, something I never understood, was why the germans couldn't crush the pocket of resistance. Were they focused more on capturing objectives rather than destroying the encircled units? The situation for the airborne was grim to say the least, a lack of almost everything essential to stay alive let alone fight. It would seem that if the Germans were to come at them in force, they would've capitulated. Can someone please explain how they held off for so long?

Deleted

These were the stats of both armies, via wiki,

• British

• 4,200 British[2]

• 1,000 Africans

• Two Gatling Guns

• 10 cannons

• Zulu

• 10000-15000 men

The results of the battle were such that the British suffered ~100 causalities and the Zulu ~1500.

This still leaves the Zulus outnumbering the British possibly 2:1. Did they just give up in the face of superior British firepower (i.e gatling gun, nine pounders, etc)?

I know that a lot of pro-imperialism types justified their actions as civilizing colonial peoples.

Were there policy-makers in places like England and France who hated the way colonized peoples were treated the colonizer, and actually wanted to improve their quality of life?

If I'm allowed a clumsy analogy, I'm wondering if there was something like the abolition movement in the US, a group of people who actually wanted to end a terrible institution and were able to elect officials on that platform.

Was there an admission that America had 'lost' the war and is it right to describe it as a war lost?

It's clearly an area of history I know little of.

To clarify, the arms are held in an "underhand" style, with the fists rotating back towards the body in a steady circular motion.

I am part of a Re-enacting group that portrays Knights Hospitaller from 11th C. - 15th C. Our primary period is 1250's, and our group has be told by our preceptor that we aren't allowed to wear rope belts to keep our cappa's & tabards up; instead we have to use our utility belt, even when fielding.

So my question is this; Can you find - Any - Fact / evidence that the Knights of Saint John (Hospitaller) did indeed wear a rope belt. As they are often depicted as such in pictures, but our preceptor can't find any evidence they even wore it. Thanks for your help.

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but it seems like there would be a massive language barrier between the conquistadors and the locals to overcome, especially in so short a time frame.

From my history text books I remember many examples of American propaganda depicting racist caricatures of Japanese. Did the reverse happen and are there any examples? If not, are there any examples of racist depictions of whites at all by anyone? As a white person I have a hard time imaging this.