Even more importantly, why didn’t the Americas learn to properly utilize the wheel? They knew how to use wheels for milling grain, but didn’t apply it further.

Around what time period do we see typical Roman names like Pompey, Decimus, Flavius, Antonius, etc turn into more typical Italian names like Lorenzo, Giovanni, Fabrizio etc? It's clear that by the 14th century, we have names like Giovanni Boccaccio writing about the plague in 1341, and by the city state period in Italy there are all the prominent families with typical Italian names like Sfortza and Medici. Where does that start?

Why? What did Roosevelt do or say about these men?

Why is hitler the poster boy of sin where we can clearly find better candidates for that role? (I'm not defending fascism i'm pretty sure the "better" candidate would also be a fascist)

Yeah i'd credit that to america

Why was hitler called the second Stalin? I never understood why…. Hitler was here first and I think hitler and Stalin were evil but not equal due to their believes and background

I think the implication of your question is how is it that some developed this metallurgy when others did not?

This is a question that history can't answer. History can't even tell us why or how those that did develop steel learned how to do it. These questions are more of a metaphysical nature. Any attempt to answer them through history is going to be speculation and conjecture at best.

So there are reasons why I believe that some developed these technologies and others did not, but they are reasons based in my religious beliefs not in historical accounts.

Why would they?

Bath houses were extremely common in the Roman Empire. The claim that they were often places of prostitution is also true.

>but does this "myth" have any merit?

In the middle ages people had a good understanding of basic hygiene, in short immersing yourself in water (warm if you can afford it) is good. The Romans had bath after all, it's nothing groundbreaking. And yes there were many bathhouses in medieval European cities which served both as bath houses and brothels.

The "dirty era" is actually the modern period (16th-18th centuries). Because bath were seen as dangerous: doctors thought that pores would open in the bath and let enter all the diseases. That's where you see stories of "a man proud of never having taken a bath in his life" and actual doctor saying that washing anything more than the hands and face is unhealthy. There's a reason why everybody stank at Louis XIV's court.

Fascinating, so bath houses were a common occurence before then? I did not realize

Bathing is not the same as washing. People washed themselves regularly usually by wiping down with wet and scented towels, and buckets of water. Those who lived near a body of water or streams would swim in there as well.

Almost no one had a bathtub to bathe in and in the Middle Ages bath houses were seen as places of prostitution so they stopped building them.

Theres a good quote in Monty Pythons the Holy Grail:

"He must be a king."

"Why?"

"He hasn't got any shit on him."

Being clean all the time was a luxury mostly only nobles and royalty had.

An interesting thing of the first phases of the Hundred Years War to take into account is also the difference between the army organisation of France and England; Edward III had almost a standing army composed mainly of veteran footmen/archers and did many short incursions through France with a fast-moving force (1339-1340, 1342, 1345 and -36). On the other side, the French had to assemble the army (l'ost) by calling up the nobles which could take weeks and sometimes could not catch the English and force them to battle - the English had already returned home by the time the ost was ready.

This also led to economic problems which are a bit involved - simply put, every time a special war tax had to be levied, sometimes for months or years after the English had passed and for paying an army that had not been able to defend anything at all.

I think it's dependable on the period and area. The Vikings (or more properly Scandinavians) were notorious for their good hygiene, which, kind of, put to shame the Anglo-Saxons who bathed much rarer. In the 11th century, an otherwise unknown Trotula of Salerno wrote "De ornatu mulierum" a detailed guidebook for proper hygiene of women. John, King of England was known to take a tub along with a "tub-ward" on his journeys. In Poland of High Middle Ages public baths were very common and cheap, and Polish King Władysław Jagiełło (r. 1386-1434) kept a very high hygiene - even receipts for repairs and extensions to the baths he used have survived. Finally, there survived several treatises detailing bathing techniques, such as "Magninius Mediolanesis" and "Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum" - both from Apenine Penninsula from 13th and 14th century respectively.

[removed]

"Yo bro, i have these funny red rocks here Want to start a 1500c fire and see if it does anything interesting?"

How tf did we ever discover that stuf???

I have been in small spear formations for sparring bouts (viking era skirmishing but a spear is a spear) and they are indeed very efficient even with little to no training. The same goes for one-on-one btw, a spearman with little experience can still beat a seasoned swordsman quite often.

Edit; to clarify, I mean a swordsman with a longsword or a viking-type sword and round shield. I presume the big roman shield that covers almost the entire body would be much more advantageous.

How tf didn't Aztecs get to discover steeeeel

I often hear about how, supposedly, people in the mid ages and past times general would bathe like once a week, but does this "myth" have any merit? I mean, would people use stuff like rain to shower? Did peasents in medieval europe really barely bathe at all?

Edit: thanks alot for everyones answers, very fascinating stuff!

Issac Newton was the master of the royal mint (1696-1727) and invented the edging you see on coins to prevent clipping.

Medieval currency was based on the value of the metal and as inflation, metal supply and the purity of the metal, so new coins was minted. Then they also made coins to fit common transactions.

The answers below are all factors but he was and average general vs the best in Lee, after all both sides asked him to run their armies. He got bluffed into thinking Lee had twice as many troops than he had, still less the McClellan. McClellan thought it was between 1.5 to 1 and 2 to 1, he wanted the 3 to 1, which the military thinking of time would mean he would win, with the wrong odds he might it would be bloody and he was facing a more experienced and "better" general.
So he waited pulling in more troops which gave away the initiative when (in hindsight) he could have smashed the south and knocked a few years off the war.

There were poorer generals in the war on both sides but he allowed Lee to build a army and then failed to win when he did fight.

Hello, I would like to learn more about American, French and Industrial Revolutions. The academic books in my country give a basic idea and I’d like to have an in-depth understanding.

How are swords "expensive to produce" and "required much material"? They are basically glorified metal bars, that were sharpened.

And armor not advanced? You know what can stop a metal sword? A sheet of metal (formed into any kind of armor or a shield)

They were not used before because it took some while to get the iron / steel process right (and bronze swords dont really work, bronze is too malleable, you can stab with it - like with a spear - but not slash with it, or it bends)

They were not used afterwards because swords against armor are next to useless, and are just suicide against shot&pike.