I had read on another post here a couple of weeks back that in larger trench raids, artillery was extensively used.

They described how the artillery would literally create a box of fire around the area that would be raided so that nobody could escape and no reinforcements could come in.

I have been wanting to read more about trench raiding and delved into many accounts, but could find no reference to this tactic being used.

Did this actually happen? If so, that would be insane.

I know the Vikings had settled in there for a little while in Greenland but I never heard anything about them interacting with the indigenous greenlanders. Why is that did they not meet for some reason where they on different sides of Greenland or did they meet and how where they with other either was good or bad relations or so so?

P.S. sorry if I have bad grammar on phone.

Seriously, what the fuck? What is that even based on? Why was he so sure of himself making a ridiculous claim like that?

Sorry if this was asked before.

Since humans began to settle around 10,000 years ago there seems to have been large empires almost continuously, with Greeks, Romans, Ottoman, British...etc in the west and various Chinese dynasties, the Huns, Japanese and so on in the East. In addition various countries have been invaded or have attempted to have been invaded, such as with various Spanish excursions to Britain, or Germany in WWI/II. There is also the colonisation of Africa/Americas. It seems to be a mainstay.

Why did this seem to stop in the 20th century? The last empires (Ottoman, British, Japanese, USSR) ended, and although countries are invaded (e.g. Gulf war) it is not for the same purpose of expanding territory. Guesses I would make would be the rise of government and the fall of monarchies across the world, most land if not all discovered and claimed such that colonisation was impossible, and the effort needed in particular in WWII a huge strain on the powers that used to do the conquering coupled with sacrifices made by countries belonging to empires that helped earn them their independence.

We know Hitler was a master of embroidering events for their propaganda value, eg, the death of Horst Wessel, the Reichstag fire, and then there was the whole dubious 'stab in the back' theory about the end of World War One.

But are there other examples in other countries, and other sides of politics, where faked stories gained widespread acceptance? And did this lead to a revision of how news was processed or presented after 1945?

Why did they specify Northern Virginia when, as far as I can find, there was no Confederate Army of Virginia nor an Army of Southern Virginia?

Here is the topic: What is the role of calligraphy (writing as art) in the objects presented in the galleries in the Met?? How prevalent is it, how widely does it appear, what kinds of objects does it appear in or on (or not)--and why is this happening?

I am suppose to get 3 topics and write 6 pages about them to answer the prompt. I have 2 so far: In islam, imagery is forbidden and considered creationism, which is why islamic artists use calligraphy AND that god said not to eat out of gold/silver plates/pottery, so islamic artists put arabic writing in it. I don't what else to write about. Can you historians help me out? Thanks :)

[deleted]

[deleted]

Apologies if this is a question that would only be appropriate on a particular day.

I'm appreciative of this sub so much because the final answers are brilliant and the Mods ruthlessly enforce the rules and remove rule-breaking comments. These curated comments are teaching me how much I didn't know about how professional historians weigh and reason about evidence. I can tell that by comparison I'm making tons of errors along these lines, and I can't even tell exactly what the errors are. I can just sense that I'm making different judgments than the experts, at least until I read their explanations and they sway me. This makes me wonder what errors you professionals and other learned historians notice the rest of us making in our comments. what do you all understand that we don't get?

My dad has a p38 luger from ww2. He told me the nazi symbols were filed off before he came into possession of the gun. There are indeed signs of markings that were filed off. I just want to know if it's authentic and they actually did file off the nazi symbols on guns.

Something I've never seen in any WW2 games, photos, movies, tv shows etc is any sort of machinegun mounted on British or Soviet tanks for the Commander to use, yet i've seen plenty of examples for American and German tanks. Were they not really something they used, or have i just not come across any examples?

Ok, so this question has been bothering me for a while, and i haven't been able to find an answer.

If a man born in 1922 (just an example, don't know if it even is possible) and he served in all three wars, how is that possible?

Weren't there requirements for soldiers?

Did they have to be a specific age?

Did they only have to be fit for service?

Did he have to be a specific rank?

Thanks in advance. And sorry for my horrific english and grammar, i hope y'all can forgive me.