Hello. This question was probably answered a thousand and one times but my question still stands and I couldnt find enough photographic evidence to reach a definite solution.

So I have concluded that the D-Day Omaha depiction in Saving Private Ryan is false because

1. There were no towering giant bunkers in Dog Green sector. What I found out is that the two bunkers were facing with a 45 degree angle inward, and the path leading out of the beach and inland was actually fired upon in enfilade by these two bunkers since they faced inward.

2. The beach was quite longer due to lowtide. Also the seawall wasn't a sand elevation but indeed a concrete-wooden wall.

So my unanswered questions are the following:

1. If the bunkers faced inward and fired on the path inland in enfilade, does that mean they didn't have the angle to fire upon the Higgins boats the moment they hit the beach? Given the 45 degree angle inward, it seems unlikely that they could turn the MGs outward enough to fire upon boats 300 yards away.

2. How could soldiers possibly reach inland if two bunkers faced inward and fired upon the one single path out. It would have been a super messy crossfire. In Saving Private Ryan defilade occurs beyond the seawall so they can storm inland with some covering fire but with two bunkers enfilade crossfire upon the way out I just cannot grasp how they managed to survive.

I've seen some claims that Japan surrendered because of the soviets willingness to enter the war against Japan, others claimed Japan wanted to surrender before or right after the first bomb. What was the reason that Japan finally surrendered?

With the recent news articles about the North Korean defector hosting tons of parasites, I feel this is an interesting topic.

How comparable is the health of the current defector to your average European Peasant during the Middle Ages? Would a farmer in Italy or Germany similarly be riddled with parasites?

Hi! Do you know some good youtube channel that talks about history in a simple but accurate way? I know there are plenty of them also depending on the subject but I would like to know if there are some that you particularly love... (Like ted ed for education and science)

And what about videogames? Any really based on history that allow you to learn something?

So I am researching something for my own purposes, and I'm looking for any sources, or at least starting points for various traditions of Magical, Mystical, and Folk Traditions that existed in the Byzantine Empire, and thus far I haven't found much consistent. Does anyone have a few places I can start looking or have some information I can work with?

So Ecuadorians make up one of the largest Latin-American immigration population in Spain. Why is this? I'd expect countries like larger countries like Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, etc to be the top source of Latin-American immigration in Spain. What are some historical reasons why Ecuador, out of all Latin American countries, contributes such large number of immigrants to Spain?

It seems like the general consensus is that rape and torture were common place and a part of life during the medieval period. This is exemplified by media like Game of Thrones which is loosely based off of that time period. How much of this factual? Were rape and torture frowned upon or possibly ignored? If you could provide multiple sources that would be great!

Hi, I recently got into history, especially World War 2. Does anyone know some books on World War 2 that captured people's mindset during the war on both sides?

How often were the machine guns on most tank used in WW2 and what exactly were they used for?

[deleted]

Chariot racing seemed to be be the great pass time in Roman and Byzantine empires, but it appeared to die out. Why did it, especially since it seems like there where plenty of places where the rulers wanted to emulate the Roman Empire? Was it just because it required so much infrastructure that people weren't willing to pay for?

I'm aware of how Ancient naval battle occurred such as with Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, etc. They attempted to ram their ships into the enemy and sink them, or in the case of romans sometimes board them.

But I do not know how naval battles occurred after that period and before the period of gunpowder where they would shoot canons into each other.

By basic question is: In medieval times, say 5th century to pre-canon era, how did ships fight at sea? Would they still attempt to ram each other and board? Or would something else happen?

Thanks in advance!

Also, was there ever a time in the 20th century where people whose teeth had been straightened by braces might not want to admit it publicly?

During the Great Schism, Orthodox Christianity split with the Catholic Church over many doctrinal, cultural, and practical differences. On many of these positions, such as the primacy of the Pope in Rome over other patriarchs, or rights of priests to marry, the Reformers were closer to Orthodox Christianity than to Catholicism. On other positions such as pre-destination, faith alone, or the veneration of icons and saints, there remained a sharp disagreement.

Still, given the rich history and solid base of the Orthodox church, during the Reformation Era, were there any serious voices to adopt Orthodox rites, rather than come up with a radically new type of Church without established history and base of support? Both the Orthodox Church and the Protestant movement, after all, claimed to "return to the roots" of Christianity during their respective schisms.

Also, what was the position of major reformers such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwigli on the Orthodox church - both in isolation and in comparison to Catholicism - was it positive, neutral, or negative? Even if major doctrinal differences existed, did any Reformers give Orthodox Christianity credit for splitting away from Catholicism, a goal they both shared and eventually achieved?

I am curious about this especially for languages that were lingua francas widely used by non-native speakers (e.g. Latin).

Today, massive amounts of English writing by non-native speakers of varying ability levels are published in a huge range of fields, and many countries even have their own distinct language patterns in English (or have contributed their own constructions to English -- such as the Japanese “salaryman"). Some of these stay within the intelligible and semi-prescriptive bounds of English as used by first language speakers, some stretch them and further the evolution of the language, and some read as awkward, broken, or even unintelligible.

Would it not have been the same for lingua francas of ages past? When we have a limited number of extant examples of a once widely used language, with many produced by non-native speakers, how do we know whether what we are seeing is "correct" or "good" use of that language?

[deleted]

Hey /r/AskHistory, after the release of the new Call of Duty, a lot of common elements are portrayed that I've seen in other forms of media. The most striking is the way the LCVP's took insane amounts of fire from the pillboxes while landing. I know it was a close call and we were fooling the Germans into thinking the real attack would be on Calais, but it seemed bad nonetheless. Obviously movies like Saving Private Ryan and games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty need some sensationalism but was it really that bad? The pure carnage always depicted when troops are exiting the LCVPs make it seem like someone should have gotten reprimanded for making our soldiers basically cannon fodder, any thoughts?

I am looking for books about the history of the East India Company, and how the economic and social landscape of India changed under their influence. I'd appreciate any recommendations. Thanks!

Okay, I've been trying to dig into this for ages. Time to draw upon your experience. The Hellenistic 'diadema' as worn by Alexander the Great and his diadochi descended successors - do we know what material it was made from? Most of the ancient portraits I have examined suggest a fabric, but beyond that I cannot discover. I would also like to know what colour was the diadema - some papers say gold (thread, I presume), some say white, some say purple or a mixture of purple and white. In addition, I've seen quite a lot of museums artefacts labelled as diadems, but they are actually made of metal (usually gold) and clearly intended to be seated on the head more like a modern tiara - are these 'diadema' too or are they just confusingly labelled? I have also seen that diadochi queens sometimes wear the stephane instead of the diadema, but have also seen the stephane in depictions of goddesses and in portraits of non-royal women. Was there a protocol about who could wear the stephane and for what occasions, and also for the diadema (which does seem to be restricted to royalty)? Some specific individuals seem to never wear the stephane, or vice versa the diadema, despite being queens - is that simply down to fashion trends? Finally, a question about the radiate crown - what was it made of, and again were there any specific protocols governing its use? Visually it seems to have evolved out of the fabric diadema but I would assume it is made out of metal, and I have only seen it on a specific few kings, with others never depicted wearing it.

/u/cleopatra_philopator - you seem like you might be able to provide some much needed insight!