I mean the sort of fighting in armor with swords or other weapons that we see depicted in big battles in movies. I'm not talking about strategy or whatever either, I mean more in terms of the pace and duration of the combat.

In movies they make it seem like a dude wearing heavy armor welding a heavy weapon could fight at a frantic pace for a really long time. That seems wildly unrealistic. World class athletes today cannot sustain a fighting pace for more than a few short rounds, with no weapons or armor, and with round breaks. And that's with modern training and nutrition.

So what did the fighting actually look like? Was it like a front line fighting briefly, then dying or moving back to let in fresh fighters? What was the duration of the actual nonstop kinetic fighting? How did it all play out given the reality of human strength and endurance?

Thanks!

Back then water was liable to give you an infection so most people drank ale as I understand it, but did kids get to drink too? Normally we consider it bad for kids to drink but I don't know if I just assumed that's how everyone has always thought or if it's a modern perspective.

I've read a lot of questions here and in the greater internet at large asking about the origins of ancient myths, or how they relate to Dinosaur fossils or elephant skulls, or etc. And while the general consensus seems to be "They probably don't, no", which makes sense.

But that got me wondering - what can or do historians take from mythology, folk tales, epic poems and the like? Are these worthless as historical documents? Or is there insight to be gained into the far past in there somewhere?

Any good books on Medieval Russia? I am interested in both pre and post mongol russia, but most interested in post.

The lawsuit listed several people as members of the religious "cult" the Jehovah's Witnesses. Did the word "cult" gain a negative connotation after the 1940s. I believe that the reason we use it today as mostly a negative has to do with things like the 1979 Jonestown mass suicide and 1994 standoff in Waco, TX.

I just read an article about how large swaths of the Amazon are actually anxiently cultivated gardens and I'm fascinated. How would these cultures have lived? Where can I look for more information? I assume it was more than just the Mayans/Incas that we learn shockingly little about in school? There doesn't seem to be a good starting point from my (admittedly quick) Google search. Thank you!

Edit: typo

Across the history of colonization and colonialism, I always find it such a mystery how some colonies permanently retain a cultural connection to their founder, and others do not.

As the British and later Americans expanded territory across the continent, they obtained lands from a variety of different pre-existing colonies: Florida from Spain, Delaware from Sweden, New York from the Netherlands, Alaska from Russia, etc. And in every single one of these cases I listed, any iota of influence from the original colonizers have long since melted into the greater Anglo-American population, such that we rarely ever think of these states as being anything other than simply "American" and not Spanish/Swedish/Dutch/Russian/etc.

But the British annexation of Quebec after the Seven Years War seems to inexplicitly break that pattern. Even though France had only colonized the region for less than 170 years (not much more than the colonies I listed above), they somehow became so permanently fixed that Quebec has stubbornly and persistently held on to their French heritage for the last 250 years since. How did the French legacy in Canada become so much more permanent than any other colony annexed by Britain?

Medical knowledge of CTE is less than 20 years old, and documented evidence of brain trauma in boxers (for example) only dates back to the late 1920's. What piques my interest is how much people further in the past knew about TBIs, especially in people who would have intuitively been at greater risk for blows to the head (military personnel, athletes, etc.) Further, if any knowledge was available about TBIs, how were victims treated? Could they qualify for welfare for the disabled, for example?

Boat? was commercial air travel viable then?

All spanish ex-colonies speak spanish, why not philipines?

thanks.

I understand the Parenthesis part but the rest leaves me questioning it.

Basically, I am looking to learn more about the state of affairs in the Roman Empire in the late 300s and early 400s, the political and military landscape. I would also like to learn more of particular individuals like Stilicho, Theodosius, Alaric, and other leading political and military figures of the time.

Any help would be great. Thanks!

From what I understand, Britain first went to India to monopolise the spice and tea trade; with no intention of colonising it. This was largely bolstered by the fact that Britain; as with most European powers; were mercantilist-protectionist command economies in search for wealth. Then through pure happen-stance and random chance; a favourable position presented itself to the East India Company after the battle of Plassey; they gained the right to tax the population and disperse law/justice. But if it's true that by the 1850's the world was moving into a free-trade economy; then why hold onto India? was it purely for the tax base?

I am wondering about how illegitimate children's surnames were chosen in regency England, both for children of commoners and of the nobility. Would names be chosen randomly or was there a convention?

Also looking for recommendations to read more about some of the bastard children of Georgian and Early Victorian noblemen (even just names of notable figures so I can read their wikipedia pages but I have university access to various journals as well for articles).

I enjoyed reading the different posts about the use of nuclear weapons during WW2. From what I understand and have read, the use of nuclear weapons was not a moral consideration, more of a consideration of when.

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China for involvement in the Korean War. With his counterattack, the war was almost over but with Chinese involvement, the war lasted a few more years. Truman eventually fires MacArthur for criticizing his decisions.

Did Truman ever consider using nuclear weapons against China? Was Mao and the PRC concerned about potential escalations for their involvement?