Why did the US Army do the amphibious landing at Normandy and not the Marines? When the Marines specialized in amphibious landings.

There have been many wars between the Romans and Persians (and before that the Parthians). It seems to me the biggest and deadliest of those was the very last one, in which the Sassianians conquered huge parts of the Eastern Roman Empire but eventually were defeated by Heraclius.

I was wondering then, how this war compare to the other wars of antiquity, particularly in the Roman World? If asked, I'd say the biggest war the Romans ever thought was the Punic Wars (especially the Second) but would I be wrong here?

ps: by biggest, I'm thinking number of troops deployed, sheer destruction and casualties.

Gratitude.

I was surprised to find a general lack of information about her and wondered what happened to the granddaughter of Sulla after what must have been an incredible public disgrace.

Does it have anything to do with slavery, and black's not able to trace their ancestry? It's just weird how White's can usually name off the multitude of different nationalities they've stemmed from, like Irish, German, Scottish, etc.. And Black's usually embrace the generalized term, "African American". Is this more of a cultural thing? Or something to do with identity, more than Black's being unable to trace their ancestry due to slavery, etc..?

Worldwide, militaries began replacing revolvers with automatic pistols right from the 1900s, and by the 1950s in pretty much any major military, including the US, the revolver was a niche weapon or completely gone.

Similarly, European police forces used a wide range of automatic designs from the early 20th century onward, from adopting military pistols to weapons designed specifically for police use.

However in America, with some exceptions, the automatic pistol failed to take off with police until the late 70s/early 80s. For the rest of the century, the average American cop carried a .38 special/.357 magnum revolver. Why did automatics take so long to make inroads in the American police market (especially long after the American military had switched over)?

Hello, as someone who have previously been in the army, is a history student and a lover of war-movies, it strikes me on how modern movies depicts small unit tactics in ww2.

Like how in many war-movies the soldiers are standing up and shooting, without taking cover or maneuvering for better positions? How accurate is this? and how commonly was this?

I am very curious about the ins and outs of Napoleonic Warfare, and would like to know a few things.

1. I read "Napoleon's Invasion of Russia" a few years ago by George something or another and distinctly remember him saying that a unit might form up in line and level muskets only to fire into the parapet or hillside in front of them. Surely musketry couldn't be that bad right? Voltigeurs and Trillaleurs were trained to aim as light infantry, but were line infantrymen truly just trained to only level muskets?

2. It is my understanding that a great deal of the combat was a game of chicken. By that I mean A unit would form up, fire a few volleys, and charge home with the bayonet, and hopefully the enemy would turn heel and be pursued by light cavalry. How often was it that soldiers truly fought tooth and nail in formation with staggering casualties? (I assume this would only really apply to open field combat) The only example I know of is The Young and Old Guard's action at Plancenoit against the Prussians, with the Young Guard suffering some 80% casualties. Was this simply a feat of Napoleon's Guard, or something that is decently common?

3. How much initiative was allowed to French officers. For example, When Marshal Ney ordered his disastrous cavalry charge against the English, was that just because he thought he saw something that simply must have been taken advantage of and went over Napoleon's head(I believe he thought he saw English retreating and chose to pursue) or was it his choice, in that Napoleon may have simply given Ney an overarching grand objective for him to accomplish at his discretion? Would a Colonel be at liberty to advance his regiment if he saw an opportunity?

I would also like some Napoleonic Wars literature to be recommended, preferably something that doesn't have an English bias so obvious I feel the need to play "God Save the Queen." Would "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler be decent? I'd like to read more about battles as well. I'd also like to check out "The Anatomy of Glory" by Henri Lachouque because lets face it think a unit that was only defeated once is interesting to read about. Any other recommendations?

So IIRC, each infantry division in the Grande Armee had 6 infantry cassions, with 165,000 rounds of ammunition apiece. How was this ammunition stored, and how was it distributed to men on the battlefield? If one unit was running low, would it let part of the reserve take its place while it restocked from the cassion? Would there be runners carrying ammunition from the cassion to the firing line?

If I understand the history of sushi correctly, it was formerly regarded as a very "common" dish, normally served by street vendors in Japanese cities. However, it seems that sushi has now attained a reputation as a "high-class" or "gourmet" cuisine in most of the world.

How and when did this shift take place?

I've started reading Barbara Hambly's Benjamin January novels. I've read a lot of her other fantasy stuff, and I know she's careful about her research, so I'm guessing that the race relations she depicts there are at least reasonably accurate. However, while I had come across the term "mulatto" before, terms like "quadroon", "octoroon" and "griffe" were new to me.

To whom were these relatively subtle gradations of ancestry important? As far as I'm aware from other places and times, oppressor groups don't generally apply much finesse to the oppressed, so were these categories and labels more a matter of self-identification than outside labelling?

I'm doing some amateur genealogy and I've found a couple instances of divorce in my family prior to 1950.

I find that most people tend to think of divorce as a modern thing, but my grandmother divorced her first husband in 1932, and prior to that my great-grandparents seem to have gotten divorced as well, sometime between 1900 and 1910. Their son always said he was an orphan, but it looks like his father was still living. Was there a stigma against divorce in the era that might have prompted my grandfather to lie about his father being dead?

I just came back from a trip to Berlin, my first. While there, I found out that during the 1930s and early 1940s, the embassies of some of the major powers (USA, Britain, the USSR) were located on or near Wilhelmstrasse, which meant that they were in close physical proximity to some of the most powerful government departments and ministries of the Third Reich. This got me wondering: did any diplomat from a western country, stationed in Berlin at that time, ever publish their memoirs/diaries/personal recollections of life for Germans at that time? If so, were there any particular publications that became particularly noteworthy.

As I understand it, one of the traditional roles or responsibilities of diplomatic staff is to inform their home governments of social and economic conditions in the countries they are stationed. So I'm assuming someone must have gone to the trouble of publishing a book-length work on the subject, for popular consumption.

[deleted]

Alright guys I just kind of noticed something and I'm wondering if it's true but I have no idea how to go about finding the answer myself without searching through the entire history of the world.

The thing I noticed in movies primarily is that men will say "that nigger..." or "that negro..." while the women will generally say "that colored..." etc. Could it be that even back then people considered the "N" word to be somewhat of a curse word like "fuck" or "damn", while saying "colored" was like a less offensive way of saying the same thing like saying "frick" or "darn"

On its face I feel like I'm pretty obviously right here but I'd like to know more specific information about it than yes that's right. I'd like to know something a little more in depth like why it's better or worse to say one or the other and maybe the basis of the slang.

For example, whilst I'm under the impression that in the United Kingdom the public were reasonably joyous that their "boys" had made it home safe, was it seen much more as a defeat everywhere else, e.g. America/France?

What was the German peoples' reaction? Was the focus more on the swift defeat of France or their inability to subdue the British? Were they nonetheless confident that Britain would inevitably fall?

Whilst I'm happy to discuss official (i.e. government level) opinions on the events surrounding Dunkirk, I am more interested in what the general populations of the warring countries thought about it.

Throughout my secondary school education I have not once heard about this man but from what I've read, he had an influence in the American Revolution. I mentioned this name to my former APUSH teacher and she did not recognize who I was talking about.