In the same way that cities and regions in the UK have stereotypes associated with them, could the same be said about Ancient Greece? If so, what are some of these stereotypes that we know about?

If I need to be more specific about a time frame, shall we say the 5th century BC?

Just re-watched Saving Pvt. Ryan for the 1000th time and was thinking just how shit it would be to be sitting by the bow of the craft, taking the brunt of the fire from the MG nests... yikes man.

It implied it was a pretty big event with tonnes of people watching, a complete national event like a mini-superbowl. Was it really that popular in the USA? Was Russia similar? None of my friends or anyone I work with could even name the current WCC.

Also the doc portrayed the Russians as being this entity supporting Spassky and Fischer being more of a lone wolf. Was this accurate or did Fischer have a big support network too and the doc tried to romanticise it?

Gibraltar has never given Spain, but the UK has handed over Hong Kong to China?

Why is that?Why did the British did not defend Hong Kong in the same way as the Falkland War?

How did the seven years war affect America? Did it lead to the revolution? Are there primary sources I can read about it?

Let's say a monarch has three sons. The second one becomes a clergy member and his elder brother becomes king upon their father's demise. Then the eldest brother, now king, dies without issue. Would the throne pass to the second brother or the third, who is not a clergy member? Do a priest's vows disinherit him? Has this sort of thing ever happened?

How did they hit anything? Wikipedia says that the 88 and the 128 were some of the most successful flak guns of WW2, yet it seems like their largeness would need to make gunners lead so far that it would be impractical. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance.

My American History professor told my class in her lecture that the Japanese were given the opportunity to surrender after Hiroshima being nuked and wanted to but were unable to because it knocked out their communication systems. Were their communications really rendered ineffective and did they really attempt to surrender? I’ve not heard this anywhere else.

*See title. Should be fairly self-explanatory question.

I'm thinking of how vessels like the stereotypical triremes of the Mediterranean or viking longships had rows upon rows of oarmen, and also sails. But then centuries later, the stereotypical ships of the renaissance/"age of exploration" seem to have ditched the oars entirely as the sails and ships seem to get bigger. What happened?

I'm specifically wondering about the beliefs and practices of Egpyt when it was a Roman province before it converted to Christianity.

I have a cassette tape from great grandmother who's mailmen interviewed Ray Gallagher, one of the airmen that took part in the Hiroshima bombing. Would this be worth donating to a museum or just uploading it online?

I've been curious about this. You see photos of starved victims and those stuck in cramped sleeping areas. But why? If the idea was to kill everyone, why wasn't everyone killed upon arrival? And the ID tattoos. What was that for if they were just to be killed?

In advance, I'm sorry if this is an extremely common question you have here.

So, anyways, during the Columbian exchange, from what I've learned, the conquering Europeans had developed immunity to diseases common in Europe, that, when brought into the Americas, wroke utter havoc on the Native Populations. Is there a certain reason Native Americans didn't have immunity to certain diseases Europeans had never come across? Or was it just pure coincidence?

EDIT: Please think of this as a repost, as shortly after posting this, I came across a question thread on this website that answered the above.

[deleted]

[deleted]

1. were they better than most? 2) why? This is something I've only heard of but dont know why. I've heard Patton and Rommel were good, but Zhukov was superior. Perhaps there is a particular admin that would like to comment on this? Wink, wink.

As the title states, colonialists used diseases such as smallpox or influenza to kill the natives, and quite effectively at that.

However, I'm wondering if the natives used the diseases they have antibodies to(I am assuming there are illnesses native to certain tribes) as a counter the colonialist bio warfare, OR even if such a thing would be possible

Thanks in advance for any responses

I've got nothing more to add here.

Sorry if this is a stupid question and the name for modern Goths was just chosen because it sounded cool.