And yet today Texan's favour men who run away and abandon them at the first sign of trouble.

Texas the coward state!

How much of these costs are salaries paid anyway?

... The fact that luck exists in history doesnt make it some ubiquitous equal factor... You're basicslly going some luck always exists so luck is irrelevant in ecalutating events.... Which is pure nonsese of a statement to make.

Ieyasu's did just have some luck. He only had luck. Out of all the notable figures (who weren't total idiots) of the era he was the least exceptional, least talented winning in the end because his competion died of old age and not through any real ability on his part. That is notable in terms of luck.

Ishida actually makes for a great contrast because he was a nobody with every disadvantage who only had status at all because of his ability, but it wasnt enough to overcome his extreme disadvantage.

Ieyasu is fascinating as he repeatedly failed in his ambitions only to ultimately become ruler mainly due to every other significant figure in Japan dying before him.

So a lot of the time with math names like "imaginary" just leads to confusion. In general these are numbers we can use in math to calculate things, but that you cannot physically hold in your hand.

Forget imaginary and just think of negative. You cannot hold in your hands "negative 5 apples". You can however represent it with a note and poof you now have credit and debt, all because you are considering a number that cannot physically exist (negative of something). Imaginary numbers are just another leap in this sense going even deeper into math.

The point ultimately is that they let you calculate things that might otherwise be impossible to calculate by filling in gaps.

1 month, or an average of 2 and a half hours per day.

In addition she admitted to submitted bad timesheets and of lying about hours worked as well and offered up no proof of work on outside PC work. Notably whenever she claimed she was doing offline work she never at any point uploaded any results of said work or offered up any other proof.

Also she only had productivity software due to bad performance previously.

But relatively speaking it was, yes it's not cardboard cheap but it wasn't that outlandishly expensive either, labour was cheap, materials were cheap and the actual process of assembly although time consuming isn't high skill especially in an era when everything is hand-made. When coupled with elements like second hand, chainmail wasn't that luxury of an item. Maybe in the early middle ages when blacksmithing was a bit rarer but still.

Note that throughout the middle ages, majority of fighters were at minimum middleclass, not peasants, furthermore the act of building equipment was done over time and not just spontaneously, so while maybe it would be very expensive to a peasant farmer, to those of higher status, like the servant of a low ranking noble, or a yeoman it would have been relatively affordable.

First we are talking about a particular time period and secondly...

no... just no.

Yes in many other historical periods or regions levying pesants and slaves was common, however there are few if any accounts of them being used as some kind of suicide softening force....

They might have been used as skirmishers to throw javelins/rocks but wouldn't be expected to fight in close combat...

The closest parables might be the Turks who would use a defense in depth strategy however the slave soldiers were there elites not the sacrifices, or the pre-marian Romans who had there youngest in the first row, but these were middleclass children not poor. The poor wern't even allowed to join the army.

It's just one example, but it's highly universal to most depictions.

Yes it's time consuming but this is the medieval era, everything is time consuming to make and labour is cheap, and we aren't even getting to the used and handed down armor. Hides and wood would not at all have been common armour outside very specific cases (usually nomadic groups). Gambeson was worn, but by literally everyone.

For the most part peasants don't fight (outside rebellion), it's literally a big part of the whole deal with being a peasant. Foot soldiers would have mostly been part of a knight/warriors entourage (servants, yeomen and otherwise) generally of a higher "middle" class and wealth then peasants even if they aren't nobles.

And don't be so pedantic about knight durability. Obviously you can kill a knight but there is a radical difference in how easy it was once plate came into being while they are actively defending themselves. And even in earlier era's there are numerous great examples showcasing just how absurdly durable knights were; for example in many famous crusader defeats, you can find that the number of executed after battles closely lines up with total number of knights, furthermore defeat most commonly came because they literally got too exhausted to move, rather than because too many of them had died.

It's important to remember that iron is an immensely abundant material in the mediaeval era even the smallest villages would have had the local blacksmith. and while the high-end plate armour of the best quality Steel would certainly been quite expensive there are many forms of armour like chainmail and brigandine that are relatively cheap and easy to make even for a relatively low skill low experience blacksmith.

If you look at something like the Hastings tapestry you'll find that pretty much everyone in a tapestry even the Archers are wearing at least full-body chainmail.

Long story short for a proper military army in the mediaeval period the majority of Regular troops would have been wearing full armour. It probably would have been of a highly varying quality and type but still it's only really more spontaneous peasant or civilian forces that would have had partial armour even then they probably had more of than you might expect.

As for effectiveness most armour allows for fairly normal mobility, you will tend to get tired more quickly compared to not wearing armour but it doesn't substantially slow you down and not enough to be a downside in that aspect. on the other hand it will make sure that anything short of a strong Direct blow isn't going to injure you and is especially useful for surviving arrows. The more extreme cases like full plate armour you're basically a tank that's nearly impossible to kill.

One of the best Testament to how effective full plate is is that they often stopped carrying Shields.

The only case where armour makes a big difference in mobility is cavalry. the heavy weight of all of the armour requires a more muscular horses end especially if the horse also has armour will drain the horses' stamina very rapidly causing lighter Calvary to be dramatically faster over distances greater than 100m. This has led to real cases in history of light Calvary outperforming heavy Calvary usually by being able to attack them in the fanks after wearing them down, at least before full plate

Its a very indepth topic, but I chose field marshal because I feel it best captures the full intent of how the title was used.

Originally imperator was more of a mere description referring to anyone who holds imperium, but over time it started to be used as a specific title that would be acclaimed by high ranking men after great victories. And then under empire was highly restricted to essentially only the main leaders. Added note in roman society 'command' was a significant status with significant legal implications and not something to be viewed as just a "military leadership" role

The closest parable to this sense is the 5 star marshal rank, which is a supreme rank but is not a standard position but instead typically given as an honor after wars and victories to leaders of militaries. And in fact dictators often take field marshal as their key title for much of this reason.

"General of the Army" (the 5 star rank equivalent to marshal) would actually be the closer parable. In the US the title is mostly only given out as a great honour particularly after victory/war.

Imperator similarly is an honor title granted for success. Many emperors would in fact be proclaimed imperator multiple times for major achievements they attained, as opposed to a simple title equivalent to head of the army.

That's just the pretense to justify being granted a special title to circumvent the disliked rex. In actual practice "princeps" basically was conceived to indicate rulership as an alternative to rex and is essentially equivalent to rex.

Until it was eliminated, even if other titles were typically favoured, Princeps was the title that legally most indicated "the ruler of the empire" (it essentially meant that it was "right" for you to be in charge).

So in the Roman era there wasn't necessarily a fixed pure title universally used to mean "emperor" as we think of it today as Emperors usually had multiple titles unique to them. In particular many titles including Imperator could often be granted to other individuals (though not always common) and the most important titles varied: Augustus, Princeps, Caeser, Imperator, Dominus. And let's not mention the greek ones.

An emperor of the US titled in the Roman way would be something like: "The Majestic Field Marshal President Biden Washington" (note no use of Emperor/king as Roman emperors pretended to be democratic)

Imperator (the actual title) originally meant something akin to "Field Marshal" today, that is "a high ranking military office". While it is the most closely associated to attaining real power, it would at times be granted to notable generals or other individuals and as a title of 'General' wouldn't have had the same sense of "king" that we think of Emperor today.

Augustus and Princeps were both more like "Majesty" and "Great" types of titles and likely conveyed more of a "kingly" nature.

Caeser, while initially of key importance, over time became associated with heir's and would eventually be the equivalent of "crown prince".

Dominus was later added by Diocletian to replace Princeps, with the meaning basically being "lord".

Notably only the two leaders crassus and brutus were optimates. Pretty much all the other known assassins were caesarean, including notably Ceasers most trusted protégé Decimus who he viewed as a son.

A guy shaved off gold from jewelry (probably his wedding ring) and added the flakes to the sample. A viable Gold mine requires a fairly tiny amount of gold per square foot of earth so even a tiny tiny sprinkling of extra gold will make the sample go from worthless to well "goldmine!".

Extremly ammbiguous question but:

So until around the 14-1500's ranching and mass animal availability wasnt very big. There are lots of specific regional exceptions but on average they wernt that common. Plains tribes often had more animals due to being easier then farming in grasslands and more central to culture and life.

In say europe though a family might have had a single horse or cow or otherwise to do labour but it would primarily have been that a beast of burden. Often times families would share communal animals.

After the renisance ranching became more common and beasts of burden became incressingly cheaper and more available. By the time of american colonisation it was much more likely for every farm to have at least one beast of burden and by the 1800's there were more horses then farmworkers. Nearing the 1900's new technology saw horse population explode shortly before tractors started to replace them.