Pax Romana by Adrian Goldsworthy looks at this very question. Been a long while since I read it but I think his conclusion was that the pax Romana was a relatively peaceful and stable period compared to what had come before and after. That said, this does have to be measured against what was done to achieve it. Roman conquest could be incredibly brutal and they had no compunctions about wiping out entire people groups, enslaving and/or relocating them, and colonizing their own people. The period was also marked by a number of wars and rebellions but, comparatively speaking, these were pretty minor and very localized. Within a couple generations of conquest, most people had learned to accept Roman overlordship and focused their efforts on moving up in the hierarchy.

Key points:

Around 1,800 artefacts were found beneath the Officers Mess building at the barracks

The site was likely a cobbler's and tailor's workshop before the barracks building was built in 1827

Despite the many period TV shows, not a lot is known about how people were dressed in the early colonial days, according to archaeologist Jennifer Jones-Travers

Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall, very readable and informative. You can really see how much of an impact geography has had on the formation of nation states and their notions of 'national interest.'

Kylie Macquarie wore them at the Battle of Locomotion Cove, or something.

Hi! I've pondering these questions for weeks now, but still could not find the answers. Hope you can help me.

https://imgur.com/a/rgtTpXy

Was the medieval armour evolution and general style(pic. 1) universal across the Europe(aside from the Eastern part)?

If not, did the Normans severely change the military armour style of the Anglo-Saxons? Would the English have evolved their protective gear on their own towards coat of plates, plated brigandines, surcoats etc.(pic. 2, I've chosen Denmark, beacuse the Danes are probably the closest to the Anglo-Saxons, since they are both Germanic and from about the same geographical region) or would they have gone for something like Anglo-Saxon based Rohan soldiers have(pic. 3-4) in the LOTR movies(I know they are fiction, but it can be somewhat considered as a possible way of progression)?

Also, it is known the origin of the English Longbow is disputed, but is it safe to assume the Normans heavily prompted archey in England since it is they who started a battle by bowmen.

Sorry for any possible inaccuracies.

[removed]

Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!

Why’s everyone standing around that manky old boot?

[removed]

[removed]

The answer is that choosing to talk about one thing is also choosing not to talk about everything else. There are too many things.

I don't know of a penal unit like that (although one may very well have existed!), but a great many units were free to persecute Bosniaks, and many have been named, such as the Serb Volunteer Guard, Chetnik Avengers, White Eagles, etc. Serbian paramilitaries were used to 'cleanse' their local areas of other ethnic groups, often simply committing mass murder.

[removed]

I could be wrong, but wasn’t there a military group under the war that consisted of people with previous crimes but still had the freedom to do basically anything to the Bosniaks?

Certainly not all of them, although because of their paramilitary nature they will have included criminals, and of course they went on what you might call an extensive run of war crimes.

Every historian I talk to says that before the 1800s, people thought that children inherited characteristics from only their father. The belief was supposedly that the mother was only an "oven" and did not contribute characteristics to the child. However, I don't think people could have thought this, as there are so many obvious cases when a child inherits characteristics from their mother. Is this evidence that history is bunk and historians have little idea what they are talking about?

We’re they previously criminals or am I thinking about another group?

The Chetniks were Serbian ethnonationalists and guerrillas, who had a decidedly genocidal lean, in terms of 'removing' Albanians, Croats, Bosniaks, and Jews, from 'their' territory.

The Homo species had invented and crafted archery, used to hunt forest animals to gain food and energy. Archery were also used during the pre-historic conflicts and wars.

I thought that first human use of archery may have existed around millions of years ago, especially the early stone age and the last ice age.

I personally think that bows began as something just like that, something else, maybe another tool used for a completely different purpose,or a musical instrument (there are instruments similar to bows in some places in Africa) and someone realized that they could use if for launching arrows.

Isn’t it where the old Zooquarium was? I heard it’s just slightly more fun than the beach.

What you say makes no sense. Green, alive wood is completely different and it's not logical at all to escalate that into a bow.

I'm into archery and have tried making a bow myself, using metal tools. It was incredibly hard and didn't result in something that could be used to hunt real game. Imagine doing that with stone tools and no previous knowledge.

And no, bows have no prototype stage. Unless the bow was something else and someone realized that it could be used to launch projectiles, which personally is my favorite theory.

Never been to the Salem but the one on cape is definitely worth a trip

Can someone please explain what the Chetnicks (cetnici) under the Yugoslavian war is?

The abolition movement was genuinely popular, alongside a developing legal and religious situation that bestowed 'personhood' (to use a clumsy term) on people that were foreign or otherwise not British (who could not be slaves, by longstanding precedent). Religion had a lot of weight in social and cultural terms, and added to that, you had many respectable establishment people who took up the cause where Quakers and freed slaves could not; there was a genuine confluence of humanist and religious thought around slavery, which was not just in Britain. The French constitutions late in the 18th century also abolished slavery (although they were interrupted for other reasons), and events like the Haitian Revolution signaled a severe change in what people feared or predicted would come from slave populations. One of the political parties in the British Parliament, the Whigs, were ostensibly abolitionist, and only grew to be more so as time went on; this was a fairly obvious pressure point to use when the sugar trade grew to be less profitable, and slavery grew to be even more unpopular.

Certainly it wasn't entirely a moral issue, but it offered a sense of moral superiority and the economic case for slavery seemed to be getting shakier, alongside a much wider dissemination of just how inhuman the slave trade was, in terms of conditions, punishments, and deaths.