Or perhaps is the opposite true? Is the fact that the English and the French knew each other much longer a serious factor in this?

Specifically, the supposed 6th century leader that led British forces in a battle against the Saxons.

In the film Fury Brad Pitt's character gives his orders to other tanks, his own crew and nearby infantry while squatting low in his hatch, was this historical or was it so the filmmakers could get a better looking shot? In the film he does this when under attack from other tanks as well as AT guns and machine guns. My question is concerned with the second world war but you answerers could answer if you have knowledge of WW1 or post war sources too

I'm under the impression that for most of history China was regularly ahead in camparitive technology. Yet by the time the Opium Wars happened, the Chinese were far surpassed in at least seafaring and battlefield technology. What happened that prevented them from defending themselves?

So I read about the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Thin Red Line and immediately was insterested.Now could someone explain the Crimean war in detail?

Please explain:Why it started,Major battles,etc.

Bit of a strange question I admit. I was watching Banished on the BBC earlier this year, set in Australia in 1788, and a fellow gets shot point-blank in the head by a flintlock pistol and goes into a horrendous spasm for about five minutes because the ball gets lodged in his brain instead of out-right killing him. Equally, I was watching Time Team yesterday (they were digging around a Tudor-era fortress in the Channel Islands) and they described how a piece of lead shot could kill multiple people in a row, with those behind even being wounded by bone fragments from the poor sods in front.

Gunpowder weaponry was absolutely brutal across the board, but by the sounds of it, getting shot in the head - even at long range - was the worst deal of all. If you did experience the unfortunate circumstance of getting shot by a musket, with death almost certain, which wound would provide the quickest/most painless demise?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't think I've ever seen natural metals just lying on the ground but most ancient cultures had no problems finding enough to make swords or jewelry. Did they find it just lying on the ground and used it all? Is that why there is a modern absence of metal above ground?

What was the state of the temples? Did they have roofs?

Did Jews consider Arabs in the pre-Islamic era to be Ishmaelites? Or were there other candidates for the descendants of Ishmael?

[deleted]

I just feel like the idea that Man came from apes (simplifying here like the media may have) is quite mind boggling if it's something you've never even seen as an outside possibility before.

[deleted]

So I know that elections during that time period (from the death of Stalin to Gorbachev) were not truly free or fair, but they did occur. From what I've read, it sounds like it was common that there would be a pre-selected list of candidates and all you could vote was to accept or reject, and that elections normally had approval rates of >98%.

1.) Is the above an accurate description of how the election process for the common Soviet Citizen worked during the specified time period?

2.) Even if the above method of having a pre-selected candidate with accept/reject options was common, what would prevent disgruntled citizens from rejecting the set of candidates? Was there not a secret ballot in place?

3.) Were other forms of electoral fraud common (ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, specifically only allowing certain segments of society to vote, intentional miscounting)?

4.) What was the normal turnout for Soviet elections?

5.) In the specified time period, were there any significant instances were people repeatedly rejected the expected candidates through the ballot box? What was the aftermath?

6.) Was there any reason that they kept up elections, other than to keep a masquerade of democracy?

Hey everyone, I've been reading a lot about this, but I can't find a super basic explanation of exactly what the different political parties believed in the years leading up to the American Civil War. I don't want to read these super complicated essays detailing everything about these parties, I just want a simple explanation. What did the Whigs want? What did the Democrats want? What did the Republicans want? Were all three of these parties actually truly a thing at the time? I keep reading things that contradict each other. Thanks!