I was watching a military historian review the (incredibly silly) film Troy, and he suggested that "resisted landings are not common in ancient warfare". Why was this? Intuitively, shooting your enemy full of arrows as they disembark seems like a very sensible thing to do, so was there a tactical reason why this didn't happen or was it just too difficult for an ancient army to be exactly at the right place at the right time? Are there notable examples to the contrary, and when did this change?

Why were the catholic church so against Galileo Galilei claiming that the earth rotates around the sun?

I recently discovered that not only did the the Vatican do smear campaigns and defamation on Galileo to try and destroy his reputation, but they also did an attempted assassination on him with poison.

Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633 for claiming that the earth is not the center of the universe. Luckily the poisoning from the catholics didn't kill him but a few years later he did die.

Why was so much fear among the ruling elite about people discovering the truth that the earth rotates around the sun?

A common justification of the US dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that doing so caused a lesser loss of life. While the moral merit of this argument can be discussed, my question pertain to the validity of the premise that the Japanese would’ve been so stubborn, or patriotic, or fanatical that they essentially wouldn’t have given up.

How true is this claim? Is this more a result of orientalism and westerners ascribing these mystic mental faculties of loyalty to the Japanese, or is this based in evidence?

As an additional question, was this one of the actual motivations for dropping the bombs, or is this a later justification? Were the Americans belief in Japanese stubbornness well founded?

Both were defeated by allies during ww2, both commited atrocities, so why was West-Germany and by extention Reunited Germany allowed to have a full functioning normal army, while Japan still only has a heavily controlled Self-Defense Force?

Hi askhistorians. In U.S high school we are taught that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender and a massive casualty U.S land invasion would have been necessary to end the war - a pseudo-justification of the atomic bombs. How true is this, considering the Russian invasion from the north and more? Thanks in advance.

I'm writing a novel (isn't everyone?) And one of the central characters is a working class German immigrant who is a card carrying socialist. The book takes place in a moderately sized city, not a metropolis like New York or Chicago. So, I'm looking for a ground level perspective, not that grand overviews wouldn't be unhelpful but the nitty gritty is what I'm looking for. Thank you so much.

Also if this is the case, why didn't a army field archers and "mow" down unarmored musket men?

So i've (rightly or wrongly) read that Al-Qaeda was formed as a defence unit against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As far as i'm aware, the Soviet-Afghan war could be considered a proxy conflict of the cold war.

I've read that an insurrection (inspired/led by/i'm not sure that's why i'm on this sub) involving the US creating some sort of insurgency against the (communist influenced?) regime. With the US supplying said insurgents with weapons to fight the Soviets.

​

Sorry if this question is convoluted/my current knowledge is entirely wrong. I'm here to learn!

Has there been any recordings on the post bomb thoughts from the men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Did they have remorse, where they against it? Did they consider it just doing their jobs?

Thanks in advance.

I’m interested in learning how the rebellion started, what it’s causes were, what the Donghak movement actually believed, and what impact it had on Korea.

I don’t know how to better word this question. Basically, did Muslims believe in some kind of living evolution before Darwin, whether in the centuries shortly after Muhammad’s death or even right before Charles Darwin publicized his theory? It seems like in the amazing golden age that Muslims had, at least some kind of an explanation might have been presented.

Hi a few questions. Is it well know what day to day religious practices for Norse in the 8-11 century looked like. If so what was it like. Furthermore, when did the Norse start to adopt Christianity and when did it filter back to Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Are there good sources about those topics?

I heard once that some Japanese royal families would disguise princes as girls as a means of protecting them from enemy powers. Is there any truth to this? I can't seem to find more on this very easily online.

Were there stories (apart from the Iliad and the Odyssey) about Minoans and the Mycenaeans? What did they know or say about them? What about stories about the Minoans and the Mycenaeans from the surrounding civilizations in the Mediterranean?