Hawaii was the most strategically important set of islands for the U.S during the war. East of the islands was empty sea with no place for a base of operations like Hawaii was during the U.S invasions of the japanese pacific islands. My question is why the japanese didnt instead seize hawaii entirely which wouldve given them complete control of all U.S land in the pacific (except for the Aluetian islands in the north). What ive read is that the japanese caught the americans completely of guard during their attack on Pearl harbor, why not also include an amphibious invasion on the already wounded and shocked troops stationed after the aerial attack?

For example, did people alive in 46BC call their current year 46BC? Or did they count their years from a different starting point?

For some reason I've always had this idea that Hitler was a talented military and political strategist. Maybe because he conquered so much of Europe, or because the US invested so many resources in defeating him. However, I recently spoke to someone from Germany who told me that for contemporary Germans the picture of him is much more one of a loudmouthed fool with a little charisma who happened to be living at a time when people would respond to him. I know this question is a bit vague for this sub, but I'm wondering how to get a handle on which description is more accurate (obviously it has some relevance to current events).

Also, what was the reaction inside Sweden? Did the nobility support King Birger (either genuine or out of fear), or was the rebellion that was launched against him in large part because of his actions in killing his own brothers? And how did the Church feel about this?

And I've read the king died in exile in Denmark - was there any controversy in the Kingdom of Denmark to allow him to stay after starving his own brothers to death? Was this seen as just an attempt by the king to reassert control - and thus okay? Didn't they help impose some sort of truce arrangement beforehand?

Emperor Wilhelm has been quoted as saying "It would shame me more to surrender Tsingtao to the Japanese than Berlin to the Russians."

My question is, more specifically: was the port a vital economic asset to the Germans, or was the Kaiser's statement just nationalism?

And specifically, did Mussolini's inability to take Greece quickly, and subsequently Hitler's invasion of Greece have any effect on the outcome of the war?

Did a majority of Congressmen legitimately believe that slaves would obey the order to fight against their freedom, or were they going to be used as human shields to demoralize Union soldiers? Was it an irrational act of defiance from a government which knew it was doomed? The bill seems baffling from my modern vantage point, so I'm curious what arguments the Southern legislators had in favor of arming slaves who knew that emancipation depended on a Union victory.

[deleted]

I was recently talking to a Neopagan who made this claim, citing a wiki article. European paganism (aside from maybe the Vikings) was essentially extinct by that point as far as I know (I am not a medievalist, though, so I wouldn't know for sure). How true is this statement, or were there other pagan groups in the east that were targeted?

I am a 3rd year undergrad with a major in history, and would like to eventually pursue a PhD, perhaps in this particular area, as my grandparents were immigrants from this region. What is the state of research of this region in the Middle Ages? My gut feeling is that it's a relatively untouched subject, and that only makes me want to explore it even more.

Thanks!

Hi,

Some commanders are lauded for their genius (or lack thereof) but i got to thinking : if you're commanding an army of 80.000 men spread over a fairly large area and your only means of communication are sending guys with horses with new orders (unreliable and orders might be outdated when they arrive) and using horns and waving banners, can you really make drastic changes to the plan you had before commencing the battle?

I've read the books from Conn Iggulden about Caesar. Obviously they are not a good source for historical facts, but in the books battles are always described as very chaotic, and pretty much every centurion is left to deal with whatever happens as best he can when things don't go exactly according to plan (and they never do). Is this accurate?

In short : were the sub-commanders of ancient armies really the ones doing most of the tactical thinking in battles?

Thanks!

If yes, what were they? who enforced those rules? were there any trials? who presided over these trials, the captain, the first mate, or did it alternate? What were the punishments, was it always death, or did they jail people?

Compatible to the modern systems of language regulation, were there any such institutions?

Follow up questions: Which language system was the earliest? How old was that institution? Where was the line drawn between colloquial speech and regulated language? Under whose authority was it to make these decisions?

Jamestown, Virginia almost failed in its early years, but soon it was a well-established English colony. By 1650, there were glassworkers, blacksmiths, farmers, etc.

What sort of products were out of reach of the manufacturing capabilities of 1650 Jamestown? That is, what sorts of things was Jamestown simply unable to produce that they had to buy from somewhere else?