In Dracula, Chapter XIX, Bram Stoker states that Van Helsing gives to everyone "these so small electric lamps, which you can fasten to your breast". This book takes place around 1893 and was written in 1897. I know of "dark lamps" which are lit using oil, and can be pocket sized. But what electric lamps existed in 1893 which could "fasten to the breast"?

The title may be a little confusing but this is what I am thinking. Was there ever an attempt to make a large plane kind of like a capital ship or battleship of the sky. Something with long-range and hard-hitting heavy-caliber cannons, Multiple Engines, a large crew, and would serve as the head of an attack squadron. Something like a mini star destroyer that we see in Star Wars able to quickly intercept an oncoming attack or boost an offensives firepower. This might be a weird way of phrasing things so please take it lightly. Thanks!

British colonization in India has always been fascinating to me for, if anything, the sheer logistics of dominating an entire subcontinent. In terms of tracing it from its origins in Masulipatnam/Surat all the way to the Battle of Plassey (and beyond), how did the East India Company actually go about conquering India? How did this compare with British colonial projects elsewhere and how did this go about evolving into the British Raj? What were their most formidable challenges (i.e. local rivals) and how did they succeed against them?

I saw this post.

If you have ever fired a bow, the sword hanging by your side could disrupt the movement if it is too long. They usually had a shot sword or dagger to counter this. But a knight in armor with a long sword and shield will womp on an unarmored bowman with a dagger any day in 5 seconds of melee combat.

Indeed the above post can be supported by the fact not only did European armies in particular most famously the English longbow men equipment with daggers instead of swords but across cultures from Arab armies to Aztec warriors to American Indian Raider and even within Asia as seen in from India to Vietnam and Java all the way to Korea, most archers were equipped with floaty close quarter weapons that were almost always shorter and lighter than your stereotypical Gladius. Often being pretty small featherweight knives that make the bowie knife feel like a barbell in comparison.

So I can believe the quoted post that the nature of bows and the hamper on pull and draw movements was the reason much lighter and less complete armor and light stuff like 1 lb 10 inch warclubs and 6 inch knives were the backup weapons of archers. But there is one loophole to this theory.................

Mongols as well as the foot archers of many Northern Chinese armies use regular length swords that are comparable to arming swords (well in the mongol's case they classically use sabers around the size of typical two handed blades like European longswords and katanas).

While the argument can be made that the Mongols rode on horseback thus negating the need to keep a sword by your waist and Chinese archers still used shorter lighter swords that are more similar to the short Gladius, the simple fact that the Samurai used bows that had similar power to European bows (with the most powerful drawing similar weights to English longbows and even being similar in size esp height) but still also used two handed blades like the katana and some even used longer Japanese swords sorta makes the quoted post a bit questionable.

So I have to ask why these cultures esp the Samurai footarchers are able to shoot fluidly without hamper despite having a proper sword by the side and often wearing armor? I mean I can easily believe the theory of daggers and similar short weapons being the main weapons of archers because of obstruction in movement because of how it is a universal pattern all across the world.

Yet the Samurai as well as Mongol cavalry and Chinese infantry contradict this pattern and are able to operate in formation of shooting volley fire after volley fire nonstop despite having swords as their backup melee. Why is this?

In particular what makes the English longbow so different that even a typical Gladius length weapon would make it unwieldy and many recruited yeoman even have knives less than a foot long?

I’ve been reading The Road Back by Erich Maria Remarque and watching Babylon Berlin on Netflix. I’ve become really interested in post WWI Germany and the rise of fascism that led to WWII. I’d love to read some nonfiction that could give me a comprehensive look at that period. I’m sorry if this is the wrong sub for this, but would anyone be able to give some recommendations for books/resources about this time? Whenever I try to choose nonfiction/history books I get this anxiety that I’m choosing a bad book or one that’s not completely accurate or impartial. At the same time I would like texts that give a bit of interpretation and not just bare facts and dates.

I’d be fine reading several books with some advice about how to take each authors biases into account. Thanks I’m advance!

I am an Asian American fantasy author, so I feel I should be more versed on this but alas, my knowledge on the subject is limited to what I learned in school. The Silk Road comes to mind, but my knowledge on the subject is limited to what we glazed over in school. I am wondering about Brittany/ France between the 14th and 15th centuries in particular; any insight would prove extremely useful. Just trying to ensure my due diligence. Thank you.

Theres this terrible fear and paranoia of the country suddenly becoming communist or being taken over by the communists? Why and where did this fear originate?

I have a particular interest in putting together a project concerning the origins of the American, chattel style slave trade and would love to be able to read original documents from the time. Examples would be something like the full court ruling that doomed John Punch to slavery or any diaries kept by anyone involved on any side of the whole terrible time in human history. Feel free to recommend any available writing from the time, even something like an autobiography of a former slave or something along those lines, but I am really interested in more "in the moment" type writing.

I am assuming libraries would be the answer, but do libraries let common people sit with rare, historical documents? And if they do, would they let you transcribe them? And finally, is there any sort of database that would help someone figure out who has what? Thanks!

The British Empire and all of the mayor European powers of the time founded colonies in conquered land. In most colonies (sadly) the native population was killed, either trough wars or even genocides. This is the case in the countries with the biggest European populations outside of the continent, in the US, Canada, Australia and partly im countries like Argentina. However this didn't occur in South Africa, but why did the native nations of SA survive, but the native tribes in the rest of the conquered land often didn't ?

Was it because there were less unknown deseases (Europe and Africa are very close) or did Boers have different ideologies? 🇿🇦

When he was surrounded and defeated at Leipzig, Napoleon was offered a peace deal to keep his throne, while being offered a "good" peace. I know that the peace being "good" is subjective, but considering his defeat and bring sorrounded, why didn't he accept the peace? Was he deluded? Did he believe he could win a masterstroke? Did he want better terms after winning a battle? It seems so cruel to his soldiers, and to himself, to not accept these terms

Actual*

I'm reading Jackson Crawford's translation of the Poetic Edda, and have been wondering why Sigurd is referred to more than once as a Hun or Hunnish? (This is from the Niflung Cycle-- I don't have the book with me at the moment and can't remember specifically which poem I'm thinking of, but it's one of the ones that deals with his murder by Gudrun's brother.)

My initial expectation going into this section was that Sigurd was Norse, so it was a little jarring to read.

So, reading about the whole "Feudalism never existed" debate (which I find convincing and agree that "feudal society" is construct) how do new historians of Medieval times explain raising armies?

I'm no historian of the Medieval period, so my understanding is pretty basic - if I'm the king and you are my vassal you owe me military service. But if no such "pyramid" structure existed, how can I - as a king - raise an army?

If I understand correctly what we previously saw as "vassals" and "seniors" is essentially just a weird web (not a pyramid) of relationships. If I'm for example duke of the province can I just say no to the king and not send my men to help him in his war, and be without consequence? How can I even recruit my own man for the army if people in cities and "lower" lords are not actually my vassals?

I know the medieval period covers a wide time span, and that there is no universal answer to this question, so I'm looking more to understand how are we seeing the whole "army obligation" relationship in light of the rejection of the "feudal" model.

Mark Cuban has announced that the National Anthem will no longer be played at Mavericks games. Many people are praising this move as they say the anthem is racist. What historically would make the anthem racist and why is it such a big deal that it is played before sporting events?