If I understand it correctly Waterloo and the rest of Napoleonic wars was still mostly pitched battles not unlike in previous centuries, but 100 years later it was for the most part "continuous front". When exactly the change occurred a was it simultaneous across the world or were there significant disparities?
Supporting questions: Can WWI be indeed considered a fully "continuous front war" even in Middle East, Balkans, Eastern Europe where there were more mobility?
Or perhaps can even early 1914 on Western war be still considered more "Napoleonic" in that regard?
How the biggest XIX conflicts such as US Civil War, Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War or other smaller conflicts stack up on this scale?
Or maybe can we clearly pin-point when the change happened?
1 Answers 2019-08-12
One of the better accounts of Peter the Great's life I've been able to find was written by a Scottish General, Alexander Gordon. However, I cannot seem to find any more information on him at all. The passage Gordon writes speaks of the Great Northern War, but even then that does not answer my question, as I can find no involvement of Scotland in that war.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Honestly, this makes me so confused.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Mrs. Maisel's father was a Columbia professor. Especially in season 1, he doesn't seem to have an income outside of a professor's salary. He lives in a "classic six" on the upper west side and have full time live in help, which would be utterly out of the price range for a Columbia math professor today.
For context for people who haven't seen the show, the family lives in an apartment that would go for about $9 million today, and goes on fancy, multi-month long vacations.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
I just rewatched Troy, it is a good movie. As I watched, I kept wondering: is it a strange coincidence that Paris (the French capital) has the same name as Paris (Prince of Troy)? Or is it somehow intentional? What is the origin of Paris' name?
I know it's a bit of a silly question, but I'm curious.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
You hear about these millions of weapons, thousands of tanks and big factories producing x amount of equipment every day, but I it seems that most of them just disappeared after the war. I genuinely wonder what actually happened to all of it. Hope someone got an answer!
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Without going into any details we can’t find anything on google about it (I’m rather savvy with google too)
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-glass-fire-extinguisher-fire-mist-xh
This is exactly what we found. Says it DOESNT have CTC in it but we’re not sure what it does contain as I can’t find any records or accounts of this- one thing that is known is that it fell and broke and still worked in the sense it vaporized into a gas- however whatever the chemical was ate the finish off the floor.
We had an emergency crew take care of the situation and they figure it was pretty harmless since it WASNT CTC (carbon tetrachloride) as it said on the label but being a man who needs answers I can’t just let a mystery go like this without at least trying to get someone who might know something or find something out
So please if anyone knows what non CTC chemicals were used in older “Fire Grenades” or you can find a lead as to who the manufacturer was or where they were based it would be of great help
3 Answers 2019-08-12
Hi all,
I’m doing a history A-level (upper high school in England) and plan to go on to study history at university.
I need to write a paper on the British empire in Africa during the 100 years above, and was hoping someone could provide resources for research.
I’ve looked through the reading list on modern Britain but haven’t seen anything that covers what I’m looking for.
Any help is much appreciated, thank you.
4 Answers 2019-08-12
Obviously France and Germany were not even countries at this point, but I'm wondering which nation, culturally, represents the Frankish Empire and Charlemagne.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Well, when communists came to my country they organized a special jury called People's court. They sentenced to death almost 3000 people, most of them not collaborationists.
People's court is traditionally regarded as unnecessary cruel, even more when compared to other European courts that were established after the war.
Today I've watched an interview of one of the ex-communist high personas. He said the France murdered more than 20 000 people in its courts. Norway — 30 000, and so on, and so on.
I've never heard of such numbers nor done by Paris, neither by Oslo. Since communists here are unsactionated when speculating and changing history, I highly doubt that any of this is true.
But it is would be really interesting for me to have some more detailed information on how courts after the war dealt with death sentences for political reasons.
Thank you in advance.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
1 Answers 2019-08-12
My apologies if this has been asked before, tried looking for it but nothing came up so here I am.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
I ask because the Bible references many people, places and things that are taught about in actual university history classes, especially classes having to do with Egyptian, Roman, Middle Eastern history. Has any historian ever cross checked to see how much the events and timelines that are covered in the Bible match up with the current knowledge on the same subjects? I know a lot of the events in the Bible concern miracles that not everyone believes in, but I'm presently more curious about the accuracy of the monarchs, the wars, the demographics, and kingdoms that are mentioned. Full disclosure: I am myself a Christian, but I am looking for a more scholarly, fact-driven answer to my question.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Hi everybody!
Today we are opening up the floor to any questions related to the film Zulu and the history connected to it.
If you have a question, feel free to ask here.
If you are an expert, feel free to state so in an 'Ask Me Anything' format.
Next week we will be exploring the video game Crusader Kings II.
4 Answers 2019-08-12
I made a question 10 days ago on r/mapporn about the differences in capital city placement comparing Spanish and Portuguese America. Let me copy & paste the post (original: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/cl1cm4/diachronic_spanish_empire_map_understood_as_the/)
I find it interesting that while Portugal focused mostly on building fortified port cities, Spain seem to have had preference for building inland, highland cities. I remember reading that Portugal's pattern is the actual case: their colonial policy was indeed about finding good places for harbors along maritime trade routes, building a fortress and a town in it, and not bothering much with the countryside, leaving it to Jesuits, adventurers and the natives, and it's a strategy that makes sense. But looking at the location of hispano-american capitals, a lot of them seems to be in the middle of the mountains, and I wonder if this is the consequence of some kind of deliberate policy, such as looking for precious minerals. Look at this list here and notice how many hispano-american capitals rank among the top https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_cities_by_elevation .
Looking at the case of Brazilian capitals, all of those coastal capitals were created following the Portuguese habit of creating port cities, the few inland capitals from Brazil's colonial times can be explained either by the presence of precious minerals in the region (Ouro Preto, Cuiabá, Goiás city and Curitiba), or by the presence of amerindians in the region (São Paulo city); Oeiras, the former capital of Piauí, is the only oddball. Now looking at the history of those hispano-american capitals on wikipedia many of them seem to be explained indeed either by the presence of mines in the region, or of amerindians, but this still doesn't explain why there are so few port capital cities. Many hispano-american capitals in the mountains seem to be closely connected to some kind of port city that played a crucial role in connecting them with the spanish empire: Santiago has Valparaiso, Caracas has Maiquetia and Puerto Cabello, Bogota has Cartagena and Barranquilla, Mexico city has Vera Cruz, Quito has Guayaquil. So, why didn't they just use these port cities as capitals instead of the inland ones? Wouldn't it be cheaper to protect and develop the port city only? I remember reading on wikipedia that some of those were built in the mountains because the spaniards wanted a climate closer to the temperate climate that they knew, so they could avoid tropical diseases and cultivate temperate climate foods, which makes sense. Buenos Aires and Montevideo are in temperate climate already, so no need for mountains there, but this makes me wonder again whether the Spanish idea of colonization was different from the Portuguese one, because the kind of colonial capitals that they were building seem to be very different. I wonder, for example, if these policies were mostly made by Madrid, which is an inland highland city, and Madrilenos were interested on replicating their living standards.
The answers that I got weren't satisfactory, they just repeat what I said about natives, tropical diseases and gold, and feels like someone who just read Guns Germs and Steel and wants to explain the whole of History with those reductionist ideas. What I'm asking is whether they had radically different ideas of what colonization was, and whether this is due to internal differences. I mean, sure modern science can reveal that climate change might have played a role in the fall of Roman empire, but you can't try to explain the fall of roman empire with it and ignore what late Romans had to say about the fall of their empire. I'm not looking for the materialist explanations that supposedly move human behavior, this to me feels more like putting words in dead people's mouth, I'm asking instead whether this difference in patterns reflects some difference in how the Spanish and Portuguese wanted to organize their empire and societies, or if I'm just seeing patterns where there aren't any. I'm asking also what's up with the Spanish case specifically, because the places where they built their capitals (in the middle of mountains) seem counter-intuitive for a colonial empire (they would have to have port cities anyway to connect it with Spain), and looks more like they were trying to build nations, not colonies.
About Anglo america, it seems they mostly went for port cities too, which is what makes sense to me. But then there are USA southern capitals, which seem to be in the middle of plains.
1 Answers 2019-08-12
Kung fu and karate seem to dominate popular consciousness of martial arts in the US. There was also seemingly a huge burst of popularity for kung fu and karate films in the 70s, which I assume was at least partially responsible for martial arts in general becoming widespread in the US.
What brought kung fu and karate specifically into the limelight, and how did they become the ubiquitous after-school activity that they are in seemingly every US town today?
2 Answers 2019-08-12
Is it possible that the Caepio that Caesar's daughter was engaged to was Cato's half brother? If not, was he a relative from the Caepio family that is otherwise unknown? What is the evidence that Hortensia was married to Cato's half brother Caepio? Did Plutarch move Caepio's death back several years since he is portrayed as dying while Cato was campaigning in Macedon? What is the evidence Caepio died in 59 B.C.?
1 Answers 2019-08-12