Good luck to all the AskHistorians applying for grad school this year!

So, once in a blue moon this sub gets a question along the lines of "why didn't Renaissance pikemen carry shields like the ancient Macedonians did?" and while this isn't a full answer it's interesting to note that medieval pikemen did indeed carry small shields sometimes. For instance this description by William Patten of the Scottish pikemen at Pinkie Cleugh:

They came to the field, all well furnish with jack [light iron jackets covered with white leather] and skull [helmet], dagger, buckler, and swords all notably broad and thin, of exceeding good temper and universally so made to slice, that as I never saw any so good, so think I it hard to devise the better. Hereto, every man his pike; and a great kercher wrapped twice or thrice about his neck ; not for cold but for [against] cutting.

Standing at defence, they thrust shoulders likewise so nigh together; the fore rank, well nigh to kneeling, stoop low before their fellows behind holding their pikes in both hands, and therewith on their left [arm] their bucklers; the one end of the pike against their right foot, the other against the enemy breast high;

At the Battle of Flodden 30 years earlier, the longbow reportedly did relatively little damage to the Scottish infantry and the battle had to be decided by hand to hand combat. At Pinkie on the other hand, the English forces included artillery and mercenary arquebusiers from the continent, as well as decisive flanking fire from cannons aboard English warships. As a result, once the Scots' attack was halted by a bloody charge from the English men-at-arms, their pike formations melted away under missile fire.

Came across this mini-spat between Niall Ferguson and Yanis Varoufakis which deals with history (both political and economic), would be interested to hear what people think of it.

Also, those burns going both ways.

(Varoufakis) is an economist, not a historian, so he is easily confused by historical analogies.

.

Professor Ferguson I'm sure will agree with me that an economist who is a-historical in his approach is very dangerous in pronouncing economic policies - as is a historian who does not understand economic theory.

I'm looking for that really detailed map of Native groups in the Americas. What I remember is that you could zoom around and scroll in the map and that Mesoamerica was surprisingly detailed with many smaller groups not normally depicted on maps. Anyone know what I'm talking about/have a link to the map?

I figured I should share this rather battered but lovely helmet I've managed to get my hands on for some Wars of the Roses reenactment:

http://67.media.tumblr.com/342b0ab742fab0e076b273fc7aaee52c/tumblr_oexzefe5cw1u4x6kno1_500.jpg

I'm awfully proud of it.

There's a kind of book related to WWII that I would like to read, but I don't know whether it exists: one that doesn't talk about the war at all, but only the effects it had.

I imagine such a thing would be in three parts. First, a section talking about the state of the world up to the war, a section talking about the state of the world immediately after, and a section comparing and contrasting the two states, with some speculation on the course that events might have taken if the war had been averted. Does such a thing exist, even in general (like for events other than WWII)?

Edit: As a concrete example, I'd like to read about the effect the war had on England's relations with the rest of the world. Beforehand, it was a major world power. After, it was greatly weakened and loaded down with debt. Similarly with the USA: it was a much bigger world power after the war, the course of its development had been altered by all the industrialization changes necessitated by the war, changes to its own society resulting from returning soldiers who had seen parts of the world they might not have seen otherwise, had experiences they would not have had.

The Guardian's published this from the archives in light of Castro's death - the news report from 1959 about the success of the revolution:

The press and people of the United States defer only to the Cubans in their excessive celebration of a new Latin American hero; possibly because Castro looks so young and modern, and talks so gallantly: probably because on its face his victory represents the straightforward triumph of truth and heroism in a complicated world.

Interesting, I didn't know this is how the news was received (by some?) in the US.

Alright this is a question for the Central and East Asian experts!

A lot of nomadic tribes such as the Huns, Hephthalites, Alans, and some others were known by various names, but one in common was Huna. Is there a connection--are they related?

Also, is there an explanation for why tens of thousands of nomads moved out of the steppes and toppled various states between the first and fifth century CE? My professor mentioned that a cause was the initial movement of the Xiongnu in response to Han Chinese aggression, but I looked into that and the connection between them and Huns is controversial and very unsupported.

Can anyone offer any additional info? No matter how small anything is useful. Thanks all!