I've been trying to find the phonetic hieroglyph(s) for this noise for a Dungeons and Dragons game I'm running but have had no luck. Is it a composite or did the Egyptians just not use that sound?

Any help would be much appreciated

To what extent did the locals suffer in short and longterm because of the eruption? Did it have specific economical and political consequences? How much were the Dutch involved in helping to restore the order in what must have been an incredible humanitarian crisis?

I know that religion has a big role in this, but i want to know what are the relations between west and east Europe for ages and why the westerners are more developed then easterners. This from the point of view of historians.

I'm currently a History Major in the process of obtaining my teaching certificate for secondary education. I'm in my Third year of schooling and have yet to have a history course that discusses anything to do with the military. The main topic most of my classes focus on is "people without history." I understand this is an important topic to learn and understand, but i feel like the university i'm attending is failing to educate students on extremely important events. I enrolled in a "Vietnam Conflict" course under the impression that it would cover the military side of things. Unfortunately I was wrong and the class only covered politics and policy surrounding the war. Could someone please shed some light on why universities don't teach/lack military history?

Looking at modern methods of making chainmail, they use wire. Did people make wire before hand then make chainmail out of that or did they just break chunks off a larger piece and make individual rings out of that? I'm looking to make some riveted mail and would like to do it authentically as possible. Thanks. Edit: also I have access to a forge so that won't be a problem. What tools punches etc would I need.

I want to know all about the war and what caused the war. Any book references or in your own words would be great.

I know it happened but I have no idea why it happened. I'm a complete moron on the subject and am interested in learning what lead to us drafting people into that particular war.

Most accounts of Albert Sidney Johnston indicate he was held in much higher regard as an officer and leader of men than Robert E. Lee, who has become the more iconic Confederate general.

Winfield Scott called Johnston a "Godsend to the Army and to the country."

Jefferson Davis wrote: "I hoped and expected that I had others who would prove generals, but I knew I had one, and that was Sidney Johnston."

Meanwhile, R.E. Lee was criticized for his incompetence in western Virginia (soon to become West Virginia) during the opening weeks and months of the war.

By late 1861, Johnston was thought to be the Confederacy's "finest soldier."

If that's the case, then why the hell would Jefferson Davis and the Confederates send Johnston to the Western Theater? The West was a mess, yes, but I would argue Virginia was more important for the Confederacy's survival. Therefore, Albert Sidney Johnston should have been commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee or Joe (the other) Johnston sent West. By sending Albert Sidney Johnston to the West, the Confederates effectively shot themselves in the foot.

I'm not trying to argue that Johnston was a better general than Lee. I don't think Johnston ever got much of a chance - he was killed in 1862, after all. So naturally Lee is the Confederate hero of the history books, and well deserved. I do in fact think Lee was the superior leader in the end, but mostly because Johnston was killed so early on. Jefferson Davis' 1861 decision to send Johnston out West is, to me, one of the worst decisions made by either side during the war.

So do we have any idea what kind of thinking went into that decision? Why did it make sense at the time?

What were the first actions that Hitler took once the Nazi party gained power in Germany?

I just started listening to Dan Carlin's new episode of his podcast, Destroyer of Worlds, (I know. I like Gladiator and I like Dan Carlin's podcast so save the fancypants book-learnin' lectures) and he presents a quote in there from Truman in regards to Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer had just left the room after telling Truman he (Oppenheimer) had blood on his hands and Truman turned to an associate and stated, "Don't ever bring that fucking cretin around here again."

My question isn't on the accuracy of the quote, but the general attitude of Truman toward one of the men who helped him end the war when he ended it. Did this extend beyond this one encounter?

Also, way back when I made fun of books, I was kidding. Can anyone recommend a good biography on Oppenheimer and Truman?

Part of the reason that soccer-related violence is so common in Europe and Latin America is because soccer clubs are woven into the communities they represent. Traditionally, every neighborhood had its own soccer team (like Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur's grounds being only five kilometers apart; Highbury/Holloway was "Arsenal til I die" while Tottenham/Wood Green was "COYS") and the teams reflected the cultural makeup of their respective areas. This also meant rivalries underlined by political, racial, religious or ethnic divisions (Millwall for the working class, Arsenal and Spurs for the middle and upper classes. Also see Lyon-ASSE, Real Madrid-Barca, AS Roma-Lazio, Inter-Juve, Red Star Belgrade-Partizan Belgrade, Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe, Boca Juniors-River Plate), which led to ultras and hooliganism.

Pro sports in the U.S. didn't evolve like that. It evolved as being seen as entertainment. Sports are seen as just a good time in America and not a way of life like in Europe or Latin America. And because sports are entertainment, that also means they're big business, and operate on the franchise model. So sports teams aren't woven into communities for the most part.

In fact, pro sports is something of an equalizer among people of different creeds and social statuses in the U.S. e.g. "I work on the line, you're the foreman, and he's the factory owner, but on the field, we're all Steelers fans", or, "at the ballpark, we're all White Sox fans". Exceptions are few and far between: Raiders-Niners, Philly-NYC or Boston-NYC rivalries, college football (especially in the southeast). To a lesser extent, sports in Canada follows a similar philosophy to the Americans, with exceptions being junior hockey (especially in Quebec). Then you have the war between India and Pakistan cricket fans, over 1 billion fans combined.

Why did sports evolve so differently in America?

In case I get "your question shouldn't be X, but Y instead" responses, I'm not sure if there is the same "sports are a religion" outlook taken for rugby, cricket outside of the subcontinent, or sports in other countries like in Japan, SE Asia, or Anglophone ex-colonies (like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa).

Does anyone have the link to the thread about what women did for birth control in brothels or what they did?

Back during the civil war times when the north won, was there anyone from either side who wanted to transport Africans back to Africa? I do not to be racist in any way, but if the south was so against freeing blacks, then why didn't they try to get rid of them when they became free?

How advanced was the targeting technology? I guess I'm curious how they eventually knew those tens of thousands of missiles had the range and accuracy to hit any of the targets they were intended to.

Before the internet in the 1980s-1990s, if someone wanted to find out information about their parents or grandparents who had served in the US military during WWII, what did they do? Did they write to the National Archives? Did they go somewhere like a special library in person? Thanks in advance for any helpful info.

As far as I could find, they served no practical purposes. Is there any reason for them besides status and "spikes are cool"?