the British, the Germans and the Americans probably drink beer more than anything else I'd guess

By Aztec, I just mean the Mexica, Acolhua and Tepanecs. Was this something unusual to the Aztec Triple Alliance groups, or did many other Central American cultures have similar religious practices? For that matter, did the Acolhua and Tepanecs go in for it as much as the Mexica?

Certainly there isn't a good natural basis for the distinction. Why is it in baby showers, and for young children, we assign them those two colors specifically based on their sex? When did this start happening?

Am trying to find the civil suit from 1962. Filed by patient David Reed Cameron / Joan Carol Reed again 4 Buffalo, NY doctors of which two were Dr. Leslie H. Backus and Dr. Samuel Yochelson as well as Buffalo General Hospital. Suit was filed in the State Supreme Court in Buffalo. This is for a school project and I greatly appreciate any help!

Hi,

I'd like some books, documentaries and other materials to aid my in depth research of the first crusade (and some on how the first paved the way for consequent crusades to occur).

I need details on people involved, locations and events. This is for my historical fiction novel that is in the early damages of development.

Thank you.

Ask me any questions if you need to.

I've been reading about the history of Melbourne's "founder", John Batman, and lots about his life in Tasmania is written about his taking part in "roving parties." I can't find a formal definition of a roving party, but it seemed to involve hunting native peoples.

In many historical movies the kings often meet up before fighting each other in a battle. Most of the time they're just calling each other names before returning to their armies. Maybe this is mostly the case in fiction movies - but if it really happened what kept them from assassinating each other during these encounters?

For those here who have seen the movie Enemy at the Gates remember that scene at the start where the soviet officers are giving out one rifle per two men with the second man getting a clip of ammo. Is this a fact or just a world war 2 myth about the red army?

While obviously not isolated in the way that, say Alaska was, the Western states joining in that period certainly feel to be at least somewhat seperated from both the more Eastern/Southern states, as well as those on the Pacific coast which were several decades established. And while perhaps it is in part more due to a pop culture perception than truth, it certainly seems that they would evidence a culture presumably divorced to a degree from those older, more established states, one which, given the history, and more importantly self-image of the rugged individualist, I would expect to influence legal philosophies in the region. So essentially, do we see legal developments coming out of the courts and lawyers in those states which we can tie to the unique history of those states?

What causes revolutions? What are the relevant factors? I have noticed a trend where hunger seems to be the detonating force in revolution, and would like to learn more about the current theories on why and how they happen.

Presumably many of the Greek statues survived the downfall of Greece, since the Roman statues were copies.

I heard a coworker whistling the tune from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and they said it was the oldest whistling tune. Now, aside from that being obvious BS it dad make me wonder; when was whistling used to convey music and such?

It's kind of a strange name and no other kingdom that I know of called itself Two-something. Why not Kingdom of Naples and Sicily? Or just Kingdom of Sicily? Did people really called or thought of Naples as "Sicily?"

I notice that looking at old ww2 pictures, a lot of them are young and hold the ranks of E-6 or E-7 hell even some of them have E-8. Today, very rarely do you see a young e-7 or e-8, even e-6's can be in their late 20's early 30's. Was it because there was no time requirement to rank up in the army during ww2? Or was it just wartime rank-blazing?

So transitions between pantheons are fairly common in the polytheistic religions; the Olympians replaced the Titans, the Aesir replaced the Vanir, Marduk replaced Ea, and so on. My question is, does this mean that the Titans and the Vanir, among others, were probably worshipped in their own right at some point in the distant past, and that the victory of their successors in myth represented a historical shift to a new pantheon?

They could even link back to the threads in which they were addressed. I know for many topics it wouldn't be possible to conclusively say something is a misconception, but for some wouldn't it be? For instance, Nero fiddling or the drinking water one that's been popping up with this week's theme.

Was the eugenics program common knowledge among German armed forces? Did the project create divisive internal politics?

Edit: Ah, crap, misspelled "citoyen"...

I've been reading some things about the divisions of World War II, and I wonder if the war against Japan should be split off into its own, separate war. The reasons are primarily two-fold:

1. While there were some technology transfers and diplomatic promises between Japan on the one side and Germany and Italy on the other, very little in the way of military or manpower support was provided between the continents. In addition, Japan lost badly against the Soviets at Khalkhin Gol in the months leading up to the traditional beginning of World War II (September 1939), resulting in the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact that allowed a great deal of non-military goods in Lend-Lease shipping to go right past Japanese territory and on to supply the fight against Germany, further limiting Japan's military usefulness to its allies.

2. Japan's war essentially started in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria. While British and Dutch forces in the Pacific did a great deal of fighting on the ground and, to an extent, in the air to hold onto European colonies, bases, and ports and even eventually start to push the Japanese back, the defeat of Japan rested largely on US involvement due to its ability to commit naval forces that the Dutch apparently no longer had and Britain could not afford to send halfway across the world. The Koreans, Chinese, and other Asian nationalities, of course, took the brunt of the violence from Japan, but did apparently little fighting elsewhere other than South Asian troops that fought in Europe under the British flag.

Under these points, the war against Germany and Italy could still be referred to as World War II since it involved several theaters across three oceans, two major seas, and multiple continents, but the war against Japan could be known as the Great Pacific War, a parallel but distinct war in its own right, and one that might have been fought even if Europe had not come to blows.

I'm interested in commentary on accuracy and on the logic of the idea, even if there's no chance of such a split being widely recognized.