Sorry it is slightly difficult to word this properly, I will do my very best.

I am after information on how both of these wars were fought, on a macro scale rather than a micro scale.

For World War 1, I am aware that at the start, there was a war of movement before the first battle of Ypres, wherein after that both sides dug in and Trench Warfare was born. Is this a correct assumption?

I have heard that World War 1 was largely a battle of attrition, with little movement happening after the advocacy of the trenches, with battles being huge bloodbaths. What are some of the key battles that truly changed the direction of the war? What ultimately caused the Allies to win the war? Was it tactical breakthroughs, attrition warfare?

Following this, how did the Second World War differ from this? Obviously there wasn't the trench warfare like there was in WW1, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that the invention and subsequent improvement of tanks was the reason for this?

What are the key turning points in both wars? I have vague ideas that the WW2 turning points were the Germans invading Russia, the battle of one of the 'grads', either Stalingrad or Leningrad (can't remember which one it was). But what happened from those points in 1941 up until the dday landings in 1944? What was going on in 1942 and 1943?

Thank you so much for any help and answers.

Or was it more of a "Oh, that. Meh, it's been there forever" thing?

I only ask because it recently struck me just how long some ruins in southern Europe have been around.

In James Clavell's semi-historical novel Shōgun, the Japanese nobility on several occasions use the phrase "garlic eaters" in a derogatory manner to refer to Koreans. Further comments are made to the effect that they find the dietary habits of the Koreans repulsive; Buntarō at one point remarks "They cook meat all the time [in Korea], boil it or roast it [...] Koreans're animals, like cannibals. The garlic stench even gets into your clothes and hair."

Korea and Japan had just finished fighting a war at that point in history, so Buntarō's comments, and anti-Korean sentiments in general, probably reflect that. Additionally, I can't assume Clavell didn't simply invent this slur for the novel. But it made me wonder what this fixation on this particular aspect of Korean cuisine indicates about Japanese cuisine at the time in general - when you think of traditional washoku, most of the dishes that come to mind are relatively mild in flavor, with soy sauce and dashi providing the bulk of the heavier flavors. Garlic, peppers, and flavorful spices are practically absent.

So, two questions: First, is the use of "garlic eater" in this derogatory sense historical in the first place, or an invention of Clavell's? Second, what kind of seasoning and spices did Japanese people in the 16th and 17th centuries apply to their cooking? Was there a significant difference between the dietary habits of nobles (who might be more inclined to adhere to social taboos about not eating red meat) and commoners in that regard?

I am doing some creative writing that is set vaguely in the middle ages. I have an army that rests in a city on the way to its destination. I was just wondering if it would be normal to see the men clad in their armour or if they would dress more casually as they are a long way off the battle.

Edit: And if not in armour, what would they wear instead?

I've heard mentioned British soldiers in Piave and places heading out at night for covert missions, does any know what they would have been up to?

If so, was it ever any more practical than using a single sword, or a sword and shield?

I'm just curious, I'd love more insight. I'm confused with who was fighting who and why. I'd also like to know more about General Barksdale, why was he important? Why did his words before death have such a huge impact?

...or a more complex sense that, without slavery, plantation owners would have no choice but to pay fair wages, at least to whites?

From the 1880s until the 1930s, anarchist activity in the United States persisted, despite the repressions of the initial Red Scare. Radicals like Leon Czolgosz and Giuseppe Zangara terrified the American people through their violent attempts to assassinate American presidents. Two notable anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were executed in the 1920s despite very flimsy evidence for any criminality.

From what I can gather, these activists were almost exclusively Catholic, continental European immigrants or the children of such immigrants, and xenophobic attitudes toward newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe were closely tied to fear of anarchists. In addition, anarchists who did commit acts of violence seem to have been independent radicals rather than agents of any kind of revolutionary cell.

What did anarchists in America hope to achieve? Did they believe the assassination of a handful of politicians would actually bring about a society free of anarchy, or did they hope that such acts of violence would bring attention to the anarchist cause and instigate some sort of revolution?

I'm writing a novel, part of which is set in Boston during and after the revolutionary war. Obviously I'm doing a lot of my own research but I've hit a bit of snag here as all I've been able to find is about 'Boston Marriages' between women at much later date.

The characters are two 'close friends' who both served together during the war. One is a widower with school age children the other is unmarried and recently left the army. Would it be scandalous in the time period for them to live together as friends? (The time period is somewhere between 1785-1800)

I am taking a directed study master's course this fall and have to come up with my own reading list for the semester (a book a week). I would like to focus on South Asian history, particularly the preeminent books on theory and method that commonly show up on comprehensive exam reading lists (e.g. Dominance without Hegemony, Provincializing Europe, Colonizing the Body, essays by Gayatri Spivak etc.). Any suggestions would be welcome. Thank you.

Obviously, its an entertainment website so their purpose is to entertain rather than give 100% accurate history. However, a lot of the stuff seems just too good to be true. Is it reasonably legit, or is he just making stuff up?

EDIT: [link](http://badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi)

I recently read Caro's The Power Broker and Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky.

I'm extraordinarily fascinated by the amount of power both Robert Moses and L. Ron Hubbard were able to accumulate by circumventing or rewriting laws.

Are there any other figures from the late 19th century onward who managed to build such durable (and ethically questionable) empires—almost, if not entirely, isolated from government regulation? And if so, could you recommend biographies or other books about them?

I know the French attacked in the 1860s, but if I were in charge of Mexico at the time it would seem rather enticing.