As above, beyond the rampant Laconophilia of most history and media, how effective was the Spartan "Agoge" method of training at producing soldiers that were effective at taking objectives, besieging cities, and winning victories in open battle? More strictly, I am interested in the effectiveness of the Agoge as a training method, not simply a list of Spartan victories. Were there any noticeable deficits in the training, or weaknesses in it that allowed Spartan losses in battle? Would a similar method of training produce effective soldiers for a modern battlefield?(asking for reasons of a story I am working on)

Thank you for any answer.

I grew up thinking it was, but I’ve heard that there was more to it than that.

Military force is one of the oldest tools States have been able to wield. Dating back to antiquity we have records that even the earliest civilisations have used the idea of organised violence to achieve their aims, both domestically and beyond their borders. This has been a fairly consistent theme throughout recorded history, from feudal kings with knights and liverymen, to the conscripted Grande Armee of Napoleonic France. However, over the last century the international system has changed, with the creation of regional power blocs and the development of soft power. When this is coupled with the creation of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction, diplomacy rather than war has been preferred.

Why has this occured? When did Military Intervention fall out of favour?

So I watched this YouTube video of a samurai rebellion in Satsuma led by Saigo Takamori which was about "preserving traditional values", which really meant preserving the traditional privileges of the samurai which were being eroded as Japan modernized. So what exactly were those privileges? The only ones that the video mentioned was the right of samurai to murder peasants who disrespected them, and the loss of their traditional stipends. What other privileges were the Satsuma rebels seeking to restore/preserve?

For historical and geographical reasons the ire of the Provisional IRA and the majority of their militancy outside the island of Ireland was largely directed towards England. Did the leadership consider all of the home countries in the UK and its dependencies to be equally culpable for its actions in Northern Ireland or did they distinguish between England and the Celtic home countries of Scotland and Wales, as well as the Celtic dependency of the Isle of Man?

English has changed so much since it’s inception that it’s basically a different language, but we still call it English. Italian has very Latin roots, why is it categorized as a different language?

I know that the U.S.S.R. pushed a more secular agenda - did this impact how Christmas was celebrated in Russia & the other Soviet Republics?

Most parts of the region don’t get below 2°C (35°F) in the coldest months. Patagonia has grasslands, lush forests and rain. Fewer than 2 million people live in a 402,734 sq mi chunk of the continent. The only reals cities are in the north of the region. Meanwhile, colder winters exist some of the most densely populated parts of North America and Europe. Why did fewer people settle Patagonia?

I've noticed while looking at art from 'eastern' countries such as Poland, Russia and Persia, that mail armour appears to have remained prominent well into the 17th century (and possibly beyond?). In the west during this period, mail seems to be absent and armour in general was largely disappearing. What caused this disparity?

I saw a quote from a Bolshevik that considered to be offering a “better form of democracy”. And I heard a quote from a German Hitler Youth from the movie Europa, Europa who said that “in Germany we have achieved real freedom”.

Essentially what I am asking is what where these people talking about ? Obviously these regimes lacked many individual freedoms, yet some of their citizens still found them liberating and liked them. What would be their reasons for this ?

Were there political factions who thought civil war was more inevitable than others?

After the English defeated the French at Agincourt, Henry V found himself with quite the number of prisoners and came to the conclusion that he had too many and so he decided that killing off a few would make them easier to handle, feed, control etc.

I've heard accounts that some of the Engish soldiers either protested a bit or were hesitant to go through with the killings.

Was this purely due to a moral code? I would've thought that killing an unarmed prisoner, who had surrendered, would not be a good look and be seriously frowned upon by other nations and peoples?

Was it more to do with the fact that a French Knight represented quite a bit of money. Holding a French nobleman for ransom and getting their family to pay for their release could bring in quite a bit of money and so it would be understandable for someone to be a bit hesitant to just kill one and throw the money out of the window, as it were.

Or was it a bit of both?

The High Middle Ages if the title is not specific enough.

I'm reading a commented version of the Enuma Elis and it seems as the Esagil was THE temple in Babylon. They celebrated the yearly festivities in the Esagila and the Esagila is the temple always referred to as 'The House of Marduk' in the different ancient texts.

However, the Etementaki was monumental, so much so that it's the origin for the Babel's tower myth etc. Why isn't the Etementaki the House of Marduk?

Thanks in advance