How common was it to travel by ship (england to Italy)? Were ships advanced enough to sail up large rivers? Were there working canals during this time period?
1 Answers 2018-04-03
Good day friends! I'm looking for a book that is like a memoir or a published journal of a witch from history, Salem Witch Trials or before, to get a glimpse into what the world was like for a witch in the past. Has anyone found anything like this?
1 Answers 2018-04-03
I've never heard of an alternative to the hours/minutes/seconds system we have now
2 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
[deleted]
1 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
I don't remember where I first learned this, but have basically considered it true while growing up. After the Emancipation Proclamation did the Union Army see an increase in volunteers. As I'd learned it, a lot of northerners with abolitionist sympathies had been unwilling to fight if the status quo of slavery would be upheld after victory, so when the cause of the war (in the popular consciousness at least) shifted to ending slavery there was a great surge of abolitionist volunteers.
Beyond this assumption, how was the proclamation received by the average person in the north?
I've ordered James McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades" but it hasn't arrived yet, is this considered a fair and scholarly source?
1 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
Vote for what you liked. Submit ones you liked and don't see here.
11 Answers 2018-04-03
I understand that Josip fought on the Eastern front during World War I, but did he partake in the fighting duringWWII or the Spanish Civil War?
1 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
The agreement is still the basis for a lot of borders in the Middle East, the cause of many conflicts. I understand this agreement caused many Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, and that the Kurds kinda don't want to be grouped within Iraq, but besides those two examples, what other problems did the Agreement cause?
2 Answers 2018-04-03
Nowadays it's quite normal to pick up a book and just read it from start to finish in order. But what about Greeks listening to the Iliad? Did Romans read or listen to the entire Aeneid from book 1 line 1 until book 12? Would people read all 3 parts to the Divine Comedy? Or did people just get to know parts of them out of order, only eventually getting the full picture if it was a story that's integral to the culture like Homer's works?
2 Answers 2018-04-03
Thinking thinking of those scenes in the movie, I was curious about how that battle really unfolded.
So I looked it up and according to what I found, it looks like the Union Army marched in an arrow kill zone right toward the one part of the fort that had howitzers and carronades. Predictably, the Union troops were torn to pieces.
Surely, I'm missing a lot of other details.
Link to a map -- https://www.civilwar.org/learn/maps/assault-fort-wagner
If you're asking, 'Then how should they have done it?', from reading about successful battles of other forts or installations, it's normally a good idea to attack from multiple points simultaneously.
In this case, why didn't they also attack rom the north?
Lastly, perhaps this is a question about the bigger issue of Naval Gunnery at the time, but I can't help but wonder why the naval bombardment of a fort from such a close proximity was so ineffective.
Furthermore, as the soldiers were marching toward the Union Fort couldn't the ships have been firing into the Confederates, using grape and canister?
Thanks in advance.
1 Answers 2018-04-03
First of all this is partly a question of mythology, so I may be wrong in posting this. I've read over the rules and can't see a rule against it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, I stumbled upon some Wikipedia articles that, to me, seem contradictory and unclear about the Greek's knowledge of, and involvement with Aethiopia(ns). E.g. Herodotus mentions Susa as the city of Memnon, Memnon is the son of a Trojan. Also mention of a man named Aethiops being the etymological origin in of the term in the same way Rome is named for Romulus as opposed to the "burnt face" theory.
I'm interested as this certainly seems an oddity. How would the son of a Trojan become king in Aethiopia? Why would he march for Troy?
Here are the articles in question :
1 Answers 2018-04-03
The Kennedy brothers produce Neo-Confederate history texts such as "The South was Right!" (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_South_was_Right.html?id=QFilZzg3GxkC).
How seriously are they taken? I'm in a couple of American History classes at university and the Lost Cause ideology seems to be scoffed at by modern historians. Professor Brian Dirck at Anderson University reviewed "Was Jefferson Davis was Right!" and seemed to sum it by saying it was "ham-handed Neo-Confederate polemic." (http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/2567108)
So, what's modern American academia's take on traditional conservative Southern Civil War history?
3 Answers 2018-04-03
[deleted]
1 Answers 2018-04-03
Edit: Please ignore the title typo!
I'm not talking about an ancient city that was wiped out or something along those lines, I'm thinking of a situation where maybe a city was built around a valuable resource that was either made to be obsolete or diminished to nothing and the town could no longer afford to continue to operate (or operate on the level it previously did).
If a city no longer had enough tax payers would civil servants need to be fired? Would government need to be made smaller? Would they need to merge with other nearby municipalities?
It doesn't have to be this exact scenario but something like this.
A less severe scenario I was just reading about would be Schenectady NY which used to house the headquarters of GE and many other large factory jobs. It was once a city of about 100,000 people in the 1930s and has since diminished to about 60,000 because of all of the jobs leaving the area.
So I'm interested in learning about stories similar to this but much more drastic.
4 Answers 2018-04-03
According to Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy, strategic bombing proved to be decisive element in the Allied victory.
I am aware that there is a considerable debate over the effectiveness of strategic bombing; however, this question concerns the Luftwaffe’s terror bombing of 1940 and why it was or is considered less effective against civilian morale than the later Allied bombing of Germany, for example.
Was it a matter of sheer volume of attacks, bombing tactics, timing, or a fundamental difference in implementation or motive that made the Allied bombing campaigns far more effective at destroying countries’ abilities and will to wage war?
2 Answers 2018-04-03
Preferably one that's available in audiobook or even podcast form since I listen while I work (irony). I know a little bit about the overlap of socialist groups and the wobblies up to the 1960's and Norma Rae and how some of this ties into the Civil Rights movement. I'm looking for something that will firm up my understanding and hopefully bring it up to date to the 2000's and today.
2 Answers 2018-04-03
My fiancee and I recently took the Ancestry DNA test and started researching her family and found that her grandpa, who the family knows almost nothing about. Was in the First Battalion of the 23rd Regiment of the 4th Marine division from 1943-45. Specifically he was in Alpha Company.
The only resource ancestry has is the muster rolls, which are at best cumbersome. I was hoping for some direction in researching this further. From picture or video resources to a good mom any help would be great.
Lastly, from my understanding this was an infantry unit but I'm the structure of a marine battalion. Would Alpha Company have been a line unit or could have been a hq company?
Any help is great, thanks in advance!
2 Answers 2018-04-03
1 Answers 2018-04-03
For example:
Beria angrily dismissed his claims as panic-mongering and quickly left, ordering him, "Don't bother us, don't cause a panic and don't disturb Comrade Stalin!"[35] Calling a doctor was deferred for a full 12 hours after Stalin was rendered paralyzed, incontinent, and unable to speak.
Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that Beria had, immediately after Stalin's stroke, gone about "spewing hatred against [Stalin] and mocking him." When Stalin showed signs of consciousness, Beria dropped to his knees and kissed his hand. When Stalin fell unconscious again, Beria immediately stood and spat.[33]
Alliluyeva noticed how the Politburo seemed openly frightened of Beria and unnerved by his bold display of ambition. "He's off to take power," Mikoyan recalled muttering to Khrushchev. That prompted a "frantic" dash for their own limousines to intercept him at the Kremlin.[35]
2 Answers 2018-04-03