I understand the general strategic reasons for choosing Normandy, but couldn't they have achieved the same goal by finding a remote beach somewhere on the French coastline and launched the invasion from there? Germany couldn't have had every single beach defended realistically, so why choose a heavily defended one?

Also, even if there were no other viable options, how come they spread out the assault along the 5 beaches? Couldn't they have focused their entire attack on the least defended beach (like Gold) and quickly overrun that area with pure numbers and firepower?

An interpretative sign at the Mumma Farm in Antietam National Battlefield in Sharpsburg, MD reads in part, “After the war, the Federal Government compensated residents for damage caused by Union soldiers. However, since this farm was burned by Confederates, the Mummas received no compensation.”

What did the Kings in India in the middle ages look like? I could not find any portraits or statutes of any of them.

Thank you for your help in advance!

Any idea what they were called? You would sign a document, press the ink, and then hand the papers to whomever needed them. Does this ring a bell?

So there is this problem which is bothering me for a long time. During the renaissance lots of musket were used because I think it was a new invention with more power then the bow. But to be honest if you have a hill between the two enemies wouldn't it be better to have bows. If you imagine there is a scout watching at the enemy constantly, the other troups must pass the hill or even go around and he the Scout would see this. So when the muskets come the bows can constantly shoot arrows in a curve while the others must pass the hill until they can finally shoot straight. And if they want to go around the hill the scout can also tell them and then they shoot in this direction. They got no armor and shilds which could protect them. And a second reason why bows should be better in my eyes is that bows have a lot smaller reloading time than muskets. So I hope you got threw my bad English I'm sry but it was a question I was asking me allot. Yours sincerely Conni

In Britain the path to women's suffrage saw struggle between militant suffragettes and suffragettes who objected to methods like vandalism and bombings, and between suffragettes and police who often acted brutally towards demonstrators in the particularly rough period from 1907-1912. Meanwhile in Canada suffrage seems to have been achieved largely through raising social awareness with organisations, councils, publications and the like. My understanding of Australian suffrage is also that it was primarily effected through social awareness political lobbying.

In 1910, Black Friday saw police brutality towards window-smashing suffragettes, and the incarceration and force feeding of Mary Clarke led to her death a few days after her release. Schisms appeared between sub-groups of suffragettes who felt more militant was required to bring about change and defend themselves, and groups who felt the vandalism and violent demonstrations were counterproductive. As early as 1907 bombings had been carried out by suffragettes and vandalism was aimed at churches and high society haunts.

Meanwhile in Canada 1911, temperance movements and literary organisations were the primary voices, and militant suffrage movements never gained any traction. In Australia women were voting for Parliament in the Commonwealth since 1901.

In all of these countries suffrage movements were networks of diverse groups with varied political leanings and social goals (like socialists, temperance/Christian groups, imperialists, eugenicists, labour reformers and in Canada American Abolitionists). But militant suffrage as a large and influential subset seems uniquely British.

Why was the political and social reaction to women's suffrage so different between these countries? Was the situation less difficult in the Dominions because of the contemporaneous movements in Britain or were their other factors? Is this perception of the differences between suffrage movements in the British Empire even accurate?

[deleted]

Did customers have a choice of different companies to take on certain routes (e.g. London to Edinburgh)? Did this competition lead to lower prices? Did some companies become overly dominant in the market?

I thought about this whilst on a packed journey on the East coast recently and was wondering if there had ever been stiff competition in rail.

I have a memory of once reading that almost all of the capital (and profits) was from the North: they would pay for the seed and buy the crop on speculation, make the money from transporting the cotton by New England freighter, and then again with either the manufacture or purchase and sale of finished goods. But is that accurate?

Today we all here about the evils of drugs and the various attempts to stop drug trade since the Opium wars. However, I been wondering if there were any drugs being traded around against the law in the middle ages. Were there any medieval Walter Whites running around?

[deleted]

It seems that there were a number of Communists and Communist sympathizers who wanted the Soviet Union to have the atomic bomb out of some bizarre idea of making sure that there wouldn't be another war after the Second World War, or that without the Soviet Union having the bomb the West would launch a preemptive war of aggression against the USSR and vaporize Moscow and every other Russian city. What does the historical record say? Did any of them have a later realization that they were incredibly naive about giving the Soviets atomic secrets similar to Blunt of the Cambridge Five?

I have a bachelors in history and am currently a teacher. I love history and want to do something else with my degree.

[deleted]