Was there a difference between weapons used by the colonists and by the British? It seems like there would be, but I do not know for certain. Were there any battles specifically that were won only because of a certain weapon? Were there new weapons invented because of the war?

"Prefecture" seems an odd and obscure choice of English word to translate the Japanese concept. Why not "district," "county," or "province?" Those are much more commonly used in the English language for similar administrative sub-divisions in other countries.

Wales, Scotland and the island Ireland have a combined population of 14.6 million whilst England has a population of 53 million. Are there any historical reasons for this huge difference. All of Ireland, Wales and Scotland is habitable. It's not like comparing the population of Alaska with New York.

I was thinking of the time we are in now with falsified news articles, government propaganda or the bent truths by celebrities for PR.

For example, if we weren't so good at documentation and records these days, maybe in the future everyone would think forrest gump was real.

Edit : fable is not the right word, but you get what I mean

in movies they always say ''fire'' when they want a volley off arrows.

I ask this question because I came across an article listing some bizarre treatment methods that were based on magic and not scientific. Did "doctors" at the time not view patients as individual needs or did society view each individuals body to have the same properties?

I've been doing a lot of reading about the transition from the late Roman period into the early medieval period. From what I understand at this point, the Roman empire was fairly well administered and had high rates of literacy. As the empire declined, so did administrative acumen of the state apparatus and literacy, in general. How literate was the Roman Empire, namely Gaul? What kind of people would have been literate? How was that literacy accomplished? And, finally, why did it decline? Was it simply a byproduct of the chaos surrounding the collapse of the empire and introduction of barbarian tribes? Sorry if this is sort of a complicated, run-on question. I'm just trying to get my head around the decline of the state apparatus in northern Gaul and the low countries, and to obtain an understanding beyond "the barbarians are the reason."

I don't know really much in any particular era, but all my books are about Antiquity and the past 250 years. Medieval times I know almost none except about some of the philosophers and authors. Were most people in medieval times extremely stupid and dirty farmers that know almost nothing about anything outside of the farm they've never left, the farm they work from dawn till dusk 24/7? I know it's not going to be right on the nose, but how accurate is the stereotypical presentation?

I've studied Mesoamericans in the past and read about their different measures of time and distance, but I have never encountered anything about Native Americans aside from the notion of measuring lunar months.

I know that John Paul II's visit to Poland in 1979 is often pointed at as a moment that really coalesced the Solidarity movement and led to the end of Communism in Poland, but I've often heard him brought up as having had a much larger role in the end of Communism throughout Europe and eventually the Soviet Union. How much truth is there to this? Did he have any sort of direct hand in the politics of the time? Or is it just his connection to Poland as the first in a long line of dominoes ending with the fall of the Soviet Union?

What I mean is, the highest ranking officer by their rank during WW2, not counting promotions after the war.

I know that U.S. economic involvement is widely regarded as substantial and beneficial in helping the Allied powers, but I'm curious if their military involvement is as significant. Since they were involved for a relatively short amount of time before the end of the war, is it possible that the war could have ended without their help?

So I remember hearing an argument that though the U.S. Congress does work slow and especially the 113-112 Congress are the most unproductive of all time, in times of Exigency, such as war they have been known to quickly get things done. Am I imagining this or is there evidence of this arguments. My brief research into the subject (i.e google) has not helped. I was wondering what the fine people of /r/AskHistorians may have to say on the subject.

In 1176 Common sense, a book about the states suceeding from england, was published by Thomas Paine. Paine's life was marred by failure. He failed out of school, was fired from a job, and had a failed corset business. His good friend Benjamin Franklin is a genious and a revolutionary who used many psuedonyms (richard saudners,silence dogood, anthony afterwit, polly baker...etc). Is it not only possible but likely that Franklin wrote common sennse under thomas' name? Sorry for all the typos.

Are the tactics planned out beforehand? Were messengers used to relay orders during battle? How efficient were their methods of relaying commands, if there were any methods of doing so at all? What about battles in which armies of the same side were separated by physical barriers (e.g. rivers, enemy army, etc.)?