I had a conversation with an American buddy at the bar. He was completely adamant that Americans created football. I argued the opposite.

So I would like to ask was football invented by Canadians or Americans? And can I tell my American friend that he owes me a pint this weekend (a Canadian pint not those skimpy American ones) or do I have to buy him 16oz of beer on saturday?

Hello, I'm doing a project on the Mayan Creation story for my Mythology course, and in according to the Kekchi traditions, one of the hero twins, Xbalanque marries a daughter of the earth deity. Problem is, I can't find a name for him/her, can anyone help me out?

If you Google this, you get a multitude of different answers. I've read some places it was simply Gaius Julius Caesar, other say it's Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, and others say it's Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, so I'm really confused on this.

Also, on a side note, is it correct to refer to him as 'Gaius' or 'Caius' Caesar, as Josephus and Suetonius call him 'Caius', but most history books/internet pages use 'Gaius'. Thanks.

The way I've heard it, the Soviets basically were okay with shoving their men into a meat grinder during battle as long as they got an eventual victory. The Germans were not willing to throw away their soldiers' lives so easily, and this was one of the reasons the Soviet juggernaut was able to muscle its way through German defenses and straight into Berlin.

How accurate is this? If true, how significant was this "win at any cost" mentality in the grand scheme of things?

So, battleships and cruisers nowadays are obsolete because airpower makes ships, especially big ones who lack missile weapons, too easy to be sunk, right? When did this fact become obvious to the national navies of the world? Was it possibly after the Battle of Midway which showed carriers were more important?

Okay, so I've read on here that Hannibal Barca allegedly once made a list of the greatest commanders, placing Alexander the Great at first (makes sense, the Hellenistic Era was pretty epic), himself at third...and Pyrrhus of Epirus at second. Now, the only thing I know about this man was that his 'victory' against the Romans was so costly that it coined the term 'Pyrrhic victory.' Which seems like it should put him below Hannibal, and maybe even below Scipio Africanus and others.
So, what makes Pyrrhus worthy of being #2 in Hannibal's book?

just a curious thought that went through my head.

I've been watching a few WWII movies recently (namely Band of Brothers and the Pacific), and I noticed they rarely show them using any sort of artillery. There were a few moments when they used mortars or called artillery strikes, but they never barraged the enemy encampment, even when they were being bombed to hell and back.

It's pretty obvious that the US would use mortars just as much as any other country, so is this not true? I was thinking it might be because they were assaulting German/Japanese lines in both series that they wouldn't have time to set up artillery or mortars. Is this the case, or are the series simply not showing it?

.

I understand Brazil is more developed than most because it could leverage its size after its independence in negotiations with Britain and MNCs. However, countries like Chile, Mexico, Peru, or Argentina have come close but never passed the threshold. One radical depency theory I've read is that it's in the best interest of the developed nations to keep Latin America impoverished in order to extract resources at a lower cost.

I know it's not a question with a definite answer, however I've had this debate before with someone who disagreed that it was particularly important, but I'm still convinced they were hugely influential. It feels like too much of a coincidence that giant civil wars were most prominent post Marian (and imperial) reforms and that the shift in power happened so soon after the reforms. So in your opinion were those reforms all that important, or were there other reasons for shifts in Roman society at these times? Or, did these shifts never actually happen and just a product of the fact that Rome shifted to an empire in this period?

Title.

I've recently become fascinated with Goebbels, his tactics, how he operated, what he did, how he won over the German people etc.

I'm looking for non-Biased, credible and good books based on his life, his tactics and how he operated the Orwellian Propaganda Machine. Thanks!

What exactly was the justification for attacking pagan states in north eastern Europe? In the near east I get it, roll back Turkish incursions and protect pilgrim routes (originally). However, did Pagans actually attack Christian settlements? What I am asking is this. Imagine you are in important medieval European Christian. You have pretty obvious reasons to try to capture Muslim territory. But, from a contemporary moralistic view, what is the justification if in fact there had been no attacks by Pagan kingdoms in the event they did not attack first? My impression is simply that German notables wanted to carve out their own fiefs and control sea trade, and crusading would be a convenient excuse.

If there were any, what did Eastern and Western cultures learn from each other during the crusades? Possibly science, art, urban planning, literature, etc. ?

Press, speech, religion, assembly, while loosely related it seems they could have all had their own amendment. Compared to other amendments like two, and five that seem very specific.

[deleted]

Upon reading about him for a few hours, it seems to me like he did much more for the independence and nationhood of Chile and Peru than Argentina. Am I wrong? If so, what did he do in Argentina that made him a national hero, apart from winning the Battle of San Lorenzo? Did the people of Argentina see the liberation of Chile as something worthy of becoming the national hero of Argentina?

My grandfather-in-law was named [name removed per rules], he was a Staff Sgt. with Troop D of the 90th Calvary Reconnaissance Squadron Division (this sounds wrong, but is how my wife wrote it) he had boots on the ground in England, France, Germany, and Austria. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge and received numerous accolades including Combat Infantryman Badge, Good Conduct Medal, and various campaign ribbons.

I'm looking for help in learning what his Troop did throughout the war, anything of interest or import. If there exist any photographs or stories of their time deployed during WWII I would love to be able to show his family some of the things he did or may have been involved with. He didn't talk about his service much, and being in infantry during the war I'm sure he didn't have much good to talk about, but during their time of mourning I want to try and give his family more perspective on the life of the man they loved.

Please provide links to anything you find, or if you want to summarize I would be happy to share your spin on the information I receive. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

It seems to me that since the empire was crushed the germanic region should be an easy pick after the Peace of Westphalia,instead they chose to go eastwards and clash with a rising power like Russia and ultimately they lost everything