The geography of the Gallipoli peninsula, being hilly and very narrow, seems to work in the Ottomans favour, offering many possibilities to set up defensive positions and funnel the enemy into bottlenecks. Why didn't the allies land further north on the mainland, where there are large stretches of coastal plains. From there they could have assaulted the penninsula from the rear (or both ends) or go straight for the capital, Istanbul. I assume, the commanders in charge had their reasons but I'd like to know what they were.

With a lot of Godwin’s law (relating people to Hitler) going on lately, I noticed something particularly weird. While dictators can be socially progressive or conservative (though most of the terrible ones in history are usually conservative), all of their regimes are usually Socialist or Communist. I understand that it’s much easier to control a State if all the business is under the governments control, but have their been any Capitalist or Classical Liberalist dictators?

Note: I consider Fascism as economically Socialist, however it is certainly socially conservative

Did doing so rely on certain technology advancements or were there cultures and thinkers that could tell just by looking?

I am curious about what ideology would fit the Roman Empire.

If our idea of politics were around the time of the Roman Empire. How would we view the Roman Empire as what?

Sorry if this type of post isn't allowed here but it's for an AP Euro project. I was wondering what the religious motives for the Dutch exploration were. I am really not coming up with many. The Dutch were very religiously tolerant at the time. They seemed to really only be concerned with trade. The two things I have is that the few that did flee were Mennonites, and that while they didn't really participate in much missionary activity, the Dutch East and West India Companies did take the Dutch Reformed Church wherever they went. Thank you for any replies.

I remember a few things on it:

Who wrote the primary source?

Why was it written?

Who was it written for?

Any thoughts?

I stumbled across this post in the FAL Files website about how American indian cannibalism was rampant prior to their conversion to christianity. The claim says that mainstream archeologists and anthropologists are hiding this evidence because it isn't politically correct. SO were american natives prone to cannibalism or is this conspiracy level stuff?

I am looking for resources that would give me the best understanding of how the New World was settled and colonies and providences were created by different nations and corporations in Europe. How did the English (and English corporations) settle the New World? The French? Spain? Portuguese? Dutch? I would love video, audio and written resource suggestions if you have any. Thank you so much!

Did the just ram and board like in Antiquity?

I'm not quite certain whether this question belongs here, or rather into a firearm-themed subreddit, but given the source and the time period it concerns, I shall try here first.

In a paper on the history of military technology that I have read, it was promoted the idea that the German Democratic Republic's designation Maschinenkarabiner, "machine carbine", of weapons classified as "assault rifles" in the West - that is, automatic weapons firing intermediate cartridge - , adopted for political reasons over the Third Reich propagandist Sturmgewehr for such weapons, is an accurate term from a technological standpoint. This seems, however, to be a contentious proposal: not only is "carbine" defined, to my knowledge, as a shortened version of a given rifle type, firing the same cartridges as that rifle type (i.e. full-powered rifle cartridges), more recently there have also existed carbines of assault rifle types, e.g. the CAR-15/Colt Commando, or the M4, derived from the AR-15/M-16. If an assault rifle is already accurately classified as a carbine, what would that make a carbine assault rifle? Perhaps someone familiar with the history of military technology could elucidate the accuracy of the statement made in that paper in light of these confounding considerations? Much obliged!

In many books, particularly textbooks, the author or editor will say "see above" or "see below" in reference to earlier or later pages, respectively, even though pages aren't arranged in a way that this makes immediate sense. Is this a consequence of digital word processors, where (most often) the pages appear in order from top to bottom, where earlier pages really are above and later pages really below? Or is this an older idiom, and, if so, where did it come from?

It seems like there was every reason to execute him. He was a product of the French Revolution that had executed the monarchs of France and countless others. Even if he wasn't guilty of treason and war crimes after losing the War of the Sixth Coalition, why wasn't he convicted after escaping from Elbe and launching the the Hundred Days campaign that ended with his defeat at Waterloo? That must have violated all sorts of treaties and oaths. I know they even executed his brother-in-law general Joachim Murat, so why not him?

I'm curious as to if there are any recorder encounters between the two before white settlers arrived?

I once read (in a letter to the editor in a newspaper) the quoted statistic, along with another that during Vietnam, the figure was around 95%.

So, first, is the quoted statistic true, and secondly, if it is true, why was the number so low? How did US military training during WWII differ from latter wars?

And if they were, wouldn't that break the rule that two democracies can't go to war with each other?

Meant to ask how they kept it preserved...