The French Army during the Napoleonic Wars contained multiple units of Polish origin (Vistula Legion, Nord, Lancers). But later on the Duchy of Warsaw was created by Napoleon. What was the command relation between the new state and the units under French command? And what units did the Duchy hold command over themselves?

Also what was the deal with Poniatowski being a Prince and Marcheal at the same time?

All accounts of this on wikipedia that I could find were from the perspective of the allies. Surely if such a terrible fate befell the Japanese there would be some mention of it in Japan, no?

When I see posts and discussions about the effects of colonialism during the colonisations of places such as Africa, the Americas, and Australia/New Zealand, I've noticed people only tend to talk about the effects of Britain's actions during this time, and never seem to bring up the actions of other European countries. Why is this? Is this because Britain's actions are the most commonly known? Or is it that, despite other countries getting as involved in the negative actions Britain did, Britain's actions are worse? Or maybe Britain was more "successful"?

The German Empire coincided with the Gothic Revival and Medieval Romanticism in art and architecture. There was a German House on the British throne. The Anglo-Saxons; germanic tribes, returned to popularity.

Kaiser Wilhelm spent a lot of money finishing several massive medieval cathedrals and rebuilding castles, etc.

So did British; particularly English historians study German history with a favorable eye as sister 'Teutonic Nations'?

And during WWI and after, did english historians completely disown any connection with Germany and see the 'sister nation' more like '3rd cousins twice removed' so-to-speak?

On one hand, I've learned that horses were bred, trained and disciplined for years just to charge properly and obey the rider.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that horses would run straight into a formation of infantry or other cavalry armed with Spears, pollarms and other sharp and unpleasant things with anything but the horse's best interests at heart

I'd imagine that the horses would slow down significantly before impact or even change direction completely in face of a tight formation of infantry

As a kid in school I immediatly thought this many years ago and it stuck with me. That's one of the reasons why it was always easy for me to remember the Commitee of Public Safety on exams.

I realise that the title contains several assumptions that may very well be incorrect, in which case please do correct me. I also am very ill informed in the field of child development, and not making a claim that children witnessing (not experiencing) a sexual act in an early age may or may not be traumatising.

What was “cool” before Elvis was a thing? Who did women scream at from excitement and men wanted to be like? Were there musical superstars before Elvis or superstar groups before the Beatles?

The language of the past colonizers are usually spoken in their former colonies. Like French is still spoken in parts of Canada and how Spanish is still spoken in parts of the US that were previously parts of the Spanish Empire or Mexico. But I know that French isn't spoken in Louisiana because of active discouragement of it in the 20th century. But what is the reason behind Russian not being spoken as much in Alaska? Is it similar to that of Lousiana French?

I know what Feudalism means. I know that it is controversial amongst historians of that era. But it hasn't been explained to me satisfactorially why is is controversial.

I'm trying to make a fictional world with a situation like that of 176 AD Asia and I was just hoping smoke could help me understand this specific Year and what Asia was like for this specific Year.

So my question is two fold. These four major powers were aware of each others existence via the silk road and kept in touch with each other.

But how did they do so and how was diplomacy conducted between the four?

Should have been the Kushan empire. Fucking auto-correct.

And if it's true, was the man exceptionally poor of sight, or he just got that "fact" from some earlier scholar?

So, first off I want to say I'm not American or British so forgive my ignorance if this is obvious, but I had just finished watching a very good movie called "The Patriot." In the movie, both sides, Americans and English, line up in a long horizontal lines where they would face, and march towards each other, causing many soldiers from both sides to be completely slaughtered by the other sides bullets.

I'm mainly curious as to why this was the case? To me, this doesn't seem very strategic at all, lots of unnecessary death occurred, and they didn't seem to even want to protect themselves it seemed. Surely even wooden shields of sorts, at a certain distance, would be more favorable to have than just literally walking towards your own death? So, why did they do it that way? Or i guess, why did the soldiers' commanders and generals use this tactic?

I know the patriot is just a movie and like every movie has exaggerations but in other forms of media I've seen this too and was just curious if anyone could explain this? Also, I'm writing this on mobile so I apologize for any errors or formatting issues it might cause.

Hitler is often used in comparison or in allusion to the worst human being ever. For example "They're worse than Hitler!" Or the line from The Office "if I was in a room with Hitler and Toby and had a gun with 2 bullets, I'd shoot Toby twice."

Was there any historical figure before Hitler that was used in this regard in normal conversation? English speaking or not.