Is it like how troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are confined to bases and only leave with heavy security or were they walking around in NI when on their off hours?

I've read somewhere that wing mounted guns had the advantage of multiple areas where fire converges so the pilot could be less accurate and the 109s were a headache due to it being difficult to get the nose on target compared to a fw 190 with wing mounted guns.

I'm just generally curious. This is has become such a part of popular consciousness since the (surprisingly) late 20th century. Now, encountering any instances of pregnant women drinking wine or ale or whatever the spirit du jour was just jars when I encounter it in any form of literature or film.

What do we know about him? Is he similar to a historical figure, or just in the Bible?

It always rather gets on my nerves when people declare democracy to have begun in Greece. As I understand it, democracy in Europe developed mostly in the modern period with a gradual political enfranchisement of more and more of the population as royal power waned, and there is virtually no meaningful continuity with the strange, exclusive and electionless system of ancient Athens. That often causes me to doubt how much western culture truly "began" with Greece and how muh of that notion is simply renaissance and enlightenment Europeans fetishising an idealised classical aesthetic.

Still, it must be said that the field of philosophy in particular seems to owe much to the Greeks. Pretty much everyone has heard of Plato and Socrates and Epicurus. Indeed, one of the first images that pops into one's head when the term "philosophy" (a Greek one no less) is mentioned is of old Athenian men sitting around and musing on the nature of things.

Why is this? Were Greeks simply exceptional? Did they write things down more? Did the structure of their society allow for learned men to spend their lives pondering things, more than other societies did?

Or did most great civilisations produce such thinkers, and we simply have disproportionate evidence from classical Greece? It's worth noting for example, that the works of ancient Greek writers of all fields, from Herodotus to Plato, are most often preserved in Medieval European (or sometimes Arabic) copies, without which we would not know much of them. It seems unlikely that Greeks had some kind of inborn intellectual talent, especially when we consider that other civilisations produced marvels that rivalled or surpassed those of Greece (sometimes centuries or even millennia earlier) that must have required a society of great intellectual capability to produce.

Were there, then, scientists, philosophers, historians and the like in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia etc. whose works have simply not survived? Is it plausible that the equals of Socrates dwelt across the ancient world but have left no traces? An Etruscan Plato, a Persian Epicurus, Mesopotamian Thucydides and Egyptian Aristotle? Surely you'd expect them to if they did? If so, why do we not know about them, and if not, why did Greece alone seem to produce such men?

As a secondary question, was Greece perceived as intellectually unique at the time the same way it is now? Did the Greeks consider their own societies the pinnacle human thinking, and did their neighbours view them as such, or is this a modern phenomenon?

I am aware that Tupac Inca Yupanqui allegedly launched a Pacific expedition and may have encountered Easter Island as well as the Galapagos. Did the Aztecs have seafaring equipment and any record of exploration?

Nowadays we tend to recognize the great artistry that goes into map-making, the conscious decisions and skill made by the mapmaker in the presentation of information - were maps considered art in medieval Europe? Or were they looked at as strictly practical?

I was watching some videos about the Roman-Macedonian wars, does anyone know why the Legion was able to best the Phalanx? Was it due to superior cavalry on the flanks? It doesn't make much sense to me since the Phalanx should theoretically be able to out range the Legion.

Source for the quote in the title: 'Parker, G., Is the military revolution debate dead, lecture at Institut Guerre et Paix, Paris 2014.'

I recently came across this quote and source. In which way did warfare stay the same between the 1630s and 1914?
In the intervening 300 or-so years countless tactical and equipment innovations were made, everything from the Swedish Gå-på tactics of the late 17th century to the Napoleonic Square and the Gatling gun of the 19th century.
What does Parker mean when he says that the underlying concepts went unchanged during that time?

What did people in the Middle Ages or before think was happening when they felt a zap when they touched something in winter? Was there any superstition around it?

From what I know there is a popular belief that some pagan celebrations with deep roots became Christian - like Christmas and Saint John's eve, which took the place of the solstices.

Did the Christian Church assume that they could not prevent these celebrations from happening and so they decided to replace them with a Christian event?

Which other pagan rites and celebrations have been replaced with sacred ones?

Also, have other religions across the world done the same?

UPDATE: Thank you! I was not expecting answers with this level of detail and references. There is enough information to start reading and keep investigating.

Vikings spoke a Germanic language that was still mutually intelligible with the Anglo-Saxons of England, and those 2 groups didn't even need an interpreter. So, for sure the Viking language(s) was probably even closer to the language(s) of Germany.

Given that Sweden, Norway, and especially Denmark are closer to Germany, why didn't the Vikings invade Germany? I'm under the impression that Germany didn't possess anything that the Vikings needed or that the Germans had a better military than the Anglo-Saxons to repel any small band of raiders.

My father-in-law is interested in Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar,” but the brief summaries I have gotten off the book raised more than a few alarm bells. It appears from a glance that the historicity of the battles seems sound enough, but the thesis attached is extreme (to say it mildly.)

However, my background is primarily in Ancient Roman / early Christian history, so I was curious how the book is approached by most scholars of Medieval and/or Islamic history.

If applicable, what are some other books that might be effective addendums?

I get how Andorra, San Marino, and Liechtenstein survived, but how did Monaco survive? Throughout the 1400s and 1500s, there were many tiny Italian states. Off the coast of Genoa (the country, not the city) for example, which was where Monaco was, there was also Seborgia, Oneglia, Finale, Loano, and Noli as tiny states around the size of Monaco in the year 1550. Monaco was annexed, just like Andorra, in the Napoleonic Wars, and returned after. There are two main time periods where I don't know how they survived annexation. The first is aroudn 1600-1800, in which all of the other tiny states off the coast of Genoa got annexed by either Savoy or Genoa. How did Monaco escape this fate? Secondly, how were they not annexed in the unification of Italy, or during the cleanup of Italy in the mid 1800s before unification, where states like Cospaia and Lucca were annexed, and borders revised to be more clean. I know it has something to do with them being very rich and a tax haven, but surely that was not as much the case in the 1800s, much less the 1400-1600s?

I just finished The Strange Career of Jim Crow, and unless I'm misunderstanding it, it seemed that though there was extreme racial tension, there wasn't segregation. That you could be on a steamer and whites and blacks would be mingling about. That it was the recession in the 1890s and the populist movement of the South scared the rich and powerful into adopting Jim Crow segregation into placating the more racist poorer people. This seems to be counter to the traditional notion of Civil War, Reconstruction, Deal of 1876, Union troops pull out, Jim Crow comes in. Am I mistaken in this understanding?

What are some books or articles that talk about the Canadian Wild West era that talk about travelling that area. I'm interested in whether Canadians travelled around like Americans did as the terrain is so much mkre difficult. I also read somewhere that the Canadian government discouraged things like bridges and clear pathways to prevent immigrants & settlers. I'd love more information on what it was really like. Thanks!

I have two friends who have been arguing about this for the last couple weeks. I'm interested in policy and tangible evidence. I know that the nazis called themselves socialists, but they also coined the term "privatization". Getting mixed signals here, and hoping for some clarification