I was going to provide some annotations to my posts, but I decided to wait for the round-up thread so they'd be more visible. My first account was /u/aforsterwashe, who is supposed to be the Knight's Yeoman from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

First off, the Yeoman comments on the use of defensive trenches at the Battle of Aljubarrota. The Yeoman is not specifically mentioned to have been a soldier (not surprising, as his appearance in the Tales is very brief), but previous work as a military archer would make a lot of sense for the martial figure of the Yeoman. English archers were present at Aljubarrota to support their Portuguese allies as a result of the treaty signed between the two kingdoms in 1373. The Yeoman's description of the defensive works at the battle are entirely accurate. The Yeoman is a fairly wealthy and socially mobile guy, so he shows a little petulance at the memory of being asked to dig trenches like a laborer. His comment about "butchery" alludes to a brutal moment of Aljubarrota when Franco-Castlilian prisoners taken for ransom were all executed. As an archer, the Yeoman probably participated the killings, but he chooses here not to address the elephant in the room.

In a response to a WWI Tommy, the Yeoman reveals some rather unsavory aspects of his personality. He resents being called a foreigner. While nationalism was still a long time in coming, there are many 14th century accounts of the English displaying some real xenophobia, especially towards foreign merchants in the City of London. He does not understand the reference to Liverpool as an industrial center, because in his day it was a regular medieval village/town. He resents being told about the hardships of war. As a veteran soldier, he is used to the privations of medieval campaigning, with its lack of supplies, harsh conditions, and potential for death from both enemy weapons and disease. However, as an experienced mercenary, warfare is his business and he has profited substantially from it. He does not see himself as a victim of warfare, but a skilled participant in the medieval military economy. He paid no attention to the complaints about his unrestrained violence from the ecclesiastical chroniclers of his own day, so he would have little patience for the kind of anti-war literature that was so in vogue following WWI. EDIT: Also, gunpowder weapons had been present on the battlefield for a while by the time of Aljubarrota, but they hadn't made too much of an impact in field engagements yet. The Yeoman does not have much respect for these unreliable new weapons.

If only I could be /u/EmperorCharlesV IRL. ;_;

Just in case my references were obscure:

/u/Iphikrates was an Athenian general of the 4th century BC. He is most famous for completely destroying a unit of Spartan hoplites at Lechaion in 390 BC without suffering a single casualty. The son of a shoemaker, he was from a humble background, but his undeniable talent for ambushes, skirmishes, raids and naval warfare soon gained him a reputation that was enough to rout enemy armies at the mere mention of his name. Whenever the Athenians were in serious trouble, they would simply re-elect Iphikrates general, knowing he would get shit done. Later tradition associated him with countless tactical tricks and military reforms, as well as several tall tales about his ruthlessly enforced military discipline. He married a Thracian princess and was the warden of Philip II of Macedon when Philip was just a boy.

He was at one point put on trial by Chares, another Athenian general and former incidental enemy of Iphikrates during his service in Egypt (it's complicated), which is why I sprinkled my in-character posts with insults at Chares' expense.

/u/LEONIDAAAS is King Leonidas of Sparta, who led a contingent of 1,000 Lakedaimonians including 300 full Spartan citizens to Thermopylai in 480 BC, and fought to the death against Xerxes' invading army. I made him speak in allcaps as a joke reference to his portrayal in Zack Snyder's 300. The actual Leonidas was in his 60s by the time of Thermopylai, and while we know practically nothing about him, it is unlikely that he would have been known for his physical prowess or boastful manner. This was not the Spartan way.

/u/GeneralMardonios is Mardonios son of Gobryas, the right hand man of both Darius I and Xerxes I of Persia. As Darius' nephew and son-in-law, and Xerxes' cousin, brother-in-law and personal confidant, he was one of the Persian army's highest ranking commanders throughout the 490s and 480s BC. In Darius' service, he conquered parts of Thrace, Thasos and Macedon. When Xerxes retreated to Asia after the sack of Athens in 480 BC, Mardonios took over supreme command of the Persian expeditionary force and continued the work of trying to subdue the Greeks. At Plataia in 479 BC, he fought a masterful campaign against the united Greek army, but in the final engagement his elite Immortals were defeated and Mardonios himself was killed, sealing the fate of the Persian invasion army.

In Herodotos' account, Mardonios is cast as the archetypical Bad Advisor, who seduces better men to ruinous plots and initiatives through manipulation and lies. He is made single-handedly responsible for persuading Xerxes to invade Greece, and comes to a righteous end at Plataia, brought down by his own arrogance and poor judgment. However, if we read between the lines, we find a remarkably skilled and shrewd general, whose careful strategy and effective battle tactics very nearly made the great battle of Plataia a foregone conclusion. Whatever reason Herodotos had for making him the bad guy of his story, the Persian Mardonios appears to have been one of the finest generals of the Classical period.

Dear historical personages, I had a question but was was too intimidated by your eminences. But here goes.

"Great Man Theory". People debate it in this sub, but they never answer the key questions:

• Which 'great man'? Surely it's one of you.
• What makes you more 'great' than the other guests?
• Most importantly, and assuming it's not related to brontosaurus(i?), just what is your theory, anyway?

Lucian of Samosata is by a decent bit my favorite writer of the ancient world, but unfortunately I didn't see a question that "fit" him. It also would have been pretty difficult to capture his tone, though, perhaps best that I never had the chance to try it.

/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov, for Stalin's sake, you could think of something more original. You could do Vlasov!

I had a lot of fun portraying three different men from three different centuries from three different continents. :) I only wish I could have found more appropriate questions to write in!

The Citizen Kane reference for Chiang Kai-shek is perfect <3

I was unfortunately busy the entire day after I posted the thread; I had every intention of piling on the Carthaginian scum.

But what a great day for those of us with historical figure usernames!

Well, so I sort of meant to come back with a Floraidh NicDhomhaill account on Lord George Murray in the Floating Feature, but honestly got sick of talking to myself. My main account was NOT referring to him at all, but since he did write a very, very long account of the Marches of the Highland Army after the rising, in which he fully justifies his every action without room for doubt, trying to combat allegations that he gave "no quarter" orders at Culloden (note that the only surviving copy of the Jacobite note is pretty clearly a fake, but that Cumberland did give such an order). In any case, I think that explains why he was so defensive and self-righteous over that answer.

Floraidh, though, had I registered that account, might well have used her own bona fides as the one who helped smuggle the Prince out of Scotland (she would be Flora MacDonald in English) to point out that, well, yeah. Some of James' biggest supporters would not come out for Charles, because they thought his scheme was insane*, and Floraidh's own father was one of these. Likewise, figures like Cameron of Lochiel had to be given a guarantee that their lands and fortunes would be safe in case of loss before they would come out. In other words, functionally bribed.

• Keep in mind that Charles came over from France with 1 ship, 7 men (maybe 8, there's a weird footnote on that), some weaponry, and 300 barrels of brandy.

Later, Murray goes in with Danton and Louis Capet to functionally argue what year it is and give a largely faithful accounting of French "support" for the Jacobites. He did not live long enough for these people to have taken their historical place; at the time period he is writing these answers, he has less than a year to live, alone and in exile.

And poor /u/John_of_the_Bank was all primed for a question that was never asked, and so just crashed a thread to opine about Scottish financial crises.