As I understand it, dogs and humans evolved along side one another as partners in hunting, playing off each other's mutual strengths to increase their success - but did that ever extend to the battlefield? I've heard the maybe-myth of Dog Mines, but were there dogs present on battlefields in an offensive or defensive capability? What breeds were used for what purposes?

I'm particularly interested in the period of the Punic Wars, but any time period would be great.

I got to thinking about this after learning that the Wild West wasn't really that violent as we were led to believe through Western movies. I know the Mongols were violent, but I'm wondering if they were much worse than the people they conquered.

Also, did anything positive come out of the mongol empire?

Judaism, as every other religion, has fractured into many different points of view since its early days.

What I'm curious about is how it had changed by the time Jesus rolled into town on his donkey(s).

Was the theology of the day different from what we read in the OT?

Welcome to this AMA which today features nine panelists willing and eager to answer your questions on the History of Science.

Our panelists are:

• /u/Claym0re: I focus on ancient mathematics, specifically Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, Babylonian, and the Indus River Valley peoples.

• /u/TheLionHearted: I have read extensively on the history and development of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics.

• /u/bemonk : I focus on the history of alchemy, astronomy, and can speak some to the history of medicine (up to the early modern period.) I do a podcast on the history of alchemy.

• /u/Aethereus: I am a historian of medicine, specializing in Early Modern Europe. My particular interests center on the transmission of medical knowledge through vernacular texts (most of my work in this field has concerned English dietetic philosophy), and the interaction of European practices/practitioners with the non-European world (for example, Early Modern encounters with India, Persia, and China).

• /u/Owlettt: Popular, political, and social interpretations of the emergent scientific community, 1400-1700, particularly Elizabethan Britain. I can speak to folk belief regarding the emergent sciences (particularly in regard to how Early Modern communities have used science to frame The Other--those who are "outsiders" to the community); the patronage system that early modern natural philosophers depended upon; and the proto-scientific beliefs, practices, and traditions (cabalism and hermeticism, for instance) that their disciplines were comprised of.

• /u/quince23 : I can speak about the impact of science on the broader culture from ~1650-1830, especially in England and France e.g., coffeehouses/popular science, the development of academies, mechanist/materialist philosophy and its impact on the political landscape, changed approaches to agriculture, etc. Although I'm not flaired in it, I can also talk about 20th century astronomy and planetary science.

• /u/restricteddata: I work mostly on the history of nuclear technology, modern physics, the history of eugenics, and Cold War science generally. I have a blog.

• /u/MRMagicAlchemy : Medieval/Renaissance Literature, Science, and Technology. Due to timezone differences, /u/MRMagicAlchemy will be joining us for an hour today and will resume answering questions in twelve hours time from the start of this AMA.

• /u/Flubb: I specialise in late medieval science. /u/Flubb is unexpectedly detained and willl be answering questions sporadically over the next few days

Let's have your questions!

Please note: our panelists are located in different continents and won't all be online at the same time. But they will get to your questions eventually!

Was it even likely?

I'm trying to think of some more points which would help argue that other factors led to the demise of the Civil Rights Movement. My current points:

FOR:

• Black Panthers - young membership with wrong motives?
• Context of the time - Vietnam and communism. Black Panthers could be seen as a "communist threat"
• Measures such as carrying guns and 'patrol the pigs'
• Rejection of white people by the SNCC + CORE
• Ambiguous term of "Black Power"

AGAINST (other factors):

• Accomplished what they had set out? (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights 1965, 1968)
• Death of King - SCLC never regained popularity

Could anyone come up with anymore for against (and even for for), that would be very helpful.

Thanks.

Cossacks* sorry but yeah title says it all

Not sure if e.g. is what I'm looking for, sorry.

I've heard a lot about the 'robber baron' era of the US, where larger than life figures like John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt etc, self-made men that dominated industry in the US.

Was there anything similar to them in Europe? Or was it the old aristocracy that tended to control the economy? Also, could you please suggest any further readings on the subject?

The story goes that US troops found concentration camps during the campaign towards Germany, and that was the first time we had seen them. How true is this? Were any of the intelligence agencies aware of what was going on?

We are all aware of the trope of High Medieval armies being made in, in bulk, of farmers and masons with spears and low quality armour, but how accurate is that? How much of a feudal army would knights comprise? Searjeants? Town and city militia, professional mercenaries, and the aforementioned farmers and masons, how many of them would be typical in a feudal host?

For accuracy I'm speaking about the period between 1000 AD and 1320 AD in western Europe.

I was reading about the crusades and read Pope Urban II was campaigning to get troops for the crusades was he the first to support an offensive war? Did this change how Christians viewed warfare?

I am from the Midwest and there is always that hoopla surrounding the start of deer season and how many fish can be part of your limit. But I can't imagine that it has always been like this. I have been searching around the internet for a bit this morning and nothing seems to give me a straight answer. Maybe I am just not using the right key words. When did the government feel that it was necessary to regulate seasons and activities surrounding hunting/fishing/farming?

Preferably secondary source, form which I can then have the context to read primary sources

For instance, Jorgenson might mean "Son of Jorgens," but at some point it was adopted to simply be a last name that got passed down. At what point did this happen? Was it a sudden or gradual change? Why did it happen?

The calling of the Estates of the Realm in 1789 was the first stage of the French Revolution. The Third Estate, the commoners, ended up using their double representation to take over the assembly and proceeded to direct political conflict with the Crown. But before this happened, the nobility and the church presumably did not realise they were to be marginalised.

How much power did they expect to have at the meeting? What were their goals? Did they conflict with each others? Did groups of them have any tactical plans to side with the crown or members of the other estates? What were they prepared to concede and what were their red lines?

With regards to the church, I know many members were from the "low clergy" and sympathised with the commoners, but surely they realised they benefitted from the traditional power structures? How much control did the church hierarchy have over them?

With regards to the nobility, I find their position very odd. The Parlement of Paris refused to give any concessions to the King and forced the calling of the Estates. But it seems very odd they would hand power from an assembly where they had 100% representation to one where they had 33% (or even 25%)...

How common were/are double defectors - people who defect to the other side, then return to their original nation?

Question was inspired by watching the episode of The Americans where Reagan was shot, and the FBI were trying to pin Hinckley as connected to the KGB. And I thought that since JFK was killed by a gunman who was a double-defector, surely the Americans would have suspected Soviet involvement.

Was it even possible or legal in in the deep South of the 1850's?

who founded orangeville ohio and what year are there any old photos or websites i have searched and found nothing thank you

Spanish is a language I speak commonly, and in the Spanish-speaking world, particularly in Latin America, there is a great deal of -- please excuse my use of colloquial language, but it is by far the best word for the job -- butthurt over the use of the word "americano" ("American") to refer to people from the United States. The prevailing thought is that America is a continent (or a set of two continents, or one big, dual continent), and so, technically, everyone from anywhere on or about either continent is an "americano." Some people dispute this, but it is becoming politically incorrect to refer to Americans as "americanos" in Spanish.

For the curious, other terms, such as the somewhat confusing "norteamericano" (lit. North American, but meaning just "American" in common usage), or the clumsy "estadounidense" (lit. Unitedstateser") a completely made up word, are now the preferred nomenclatures.

Why is this not the case in English, or, to my knowledge, any other world languages (I am not sure about Portuguese)? Why have we not evolved a sense of "continent-ness" as Hispanophones have? Why do we think of "America" as a single country by default, and have no problem with this? Or, to ask the question a different way, why have Hispanophones developed this sensitivity toward the use of the term to describe Americans?

EDIT: Feel free to answer in Spanish!

EDIT 2: Wow, a lot of downvotes for this question... does it violate the rules in some way? Should I rephrase?