Short answer: probably.

Long answer: all life, the simplest example of which is the cell, must be able to locally reduce entropy while increasing the entropy of it's environment. So far that we're aware, this includes metabolic processes, which take simple (comparatively) molecules, restructure and recombine them, and poop out less energetic small molecules. To do this requires big molecular machines, or proteins and enzymes. These big molecules are coded like a computer (in this metaphor, it may be helpful to think of the protein/enzyme as executable code, etc.) by DNA, which again for this metaphor may be thought of as binary. The binary must be translated from 1 & 0 to a programming language, RNA in this case. The RNA may then input executable code. This requires tremendous effort, at least 50 separate proteins (again, coded commands) and only makes binary to code language to executable code. That's one pathway. One fundamental requirement. When you ask about energy metabolism like fermentation, or membrane construction, or things like that, the process gets even more whackadoodle. This is to give you an idea of the complex requirements for the basic concept that life locally reverses entropy. Now consider that for each amino acid of a protein/enzyme (the big machines, the executable code) there are 3 base pairs of DNA called a codon. Each protein can have between 100 and 1 million amino acids. That means that, not counting things like RNA, a genome must be massive for a living thing to actually be alive. Indeed, the smallest confirmed genome of a living thing was isolated from an endosymbiotic organism (a critter that lives in the cell of another critter), Nasuia, that has around 190,000 base pairs of DNA. This thing can only synthesize around 10 amino acids using their DNA. So that's probably the minimal genome possible.

Really an excellent question. As noted above, it's a bit dependent on where in the world you're looking, and what kind of battles (ie, land or sea) and in what time periods. Generally speaking (pun intended, and I mean, in the broadest possible sense as well) a pitched battle was decisive for an entire war. They were very rare, and often consciously avoided due to the immense risk. Some of the most brilliant war leaders in history actually intentionally forced pitched engagements to quickly defeat logistically superior foes. Examples: Genghis Khan, Subotai, Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, and Cao Cao (who ironically got spanked in a decisive fight too). Siege warfare was the expectation in western europe and the near east for a long time. Taking castles meant taking land meant expanding logistical base. This pattern is broadly true in the far east as well, with the caveat that the Chinese, especially during the warring states period, skirmished and battled in very large (possibly exaggerated) numbers.

We use a set of chemicals called cryoprotectants to freeze eukaryotic cells. Usually we use DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide, which causes the crystalline structure of ice to spread out a bit and prevent rupture of the cells. Tissue freezing is another animal. Because a tissue is a complex overlaid structure of cells, it's often quite difficult to preserve the structure due to a combination of uneven freezing, delicate connection, etc. Since structure almost always dictates function, you will lose some function as you disrupt structure, making it more difficult to derive information from your frozen bits.