Was talking to a coworker of mine about Woodstock and it made me wonder if other countries experienced the Counterculture Movement in ways similar to America during the 1960's to early 1970's. Was it as prevalent; perhaps even "successful" in other countries?

The 3 snipers with the most confirmed kills in American history are

1. Chris Kyle (Iraq War) 160
2. Adelbert Waldron (Vietnam War) 109
3. Chuck Mawhinney (Vietnam War) 103

Here are some examples of other snipers with higher totals

Canadian:

Francis Pegahmagabow (WW1) credited with 378 kills, and an unknown number of unconfirmed kills.

British:

Unnamed Royal Marine corporal (Afghanistan, 1 tour) 173 confirmed kills

Chinese

Zhang Taofang (Korean War) 214 confirmed kills in 32 days

German

Matthaus Hetzenauer (WW2) 345 kills

Josef Allerberger (WW2) 257 kills

Friedrich Pein (WW2) over 200 kills

Bruno Sutkus (WW2) over 209 kills

Finnish

Simo Häyhä (Winter War) 505 confirmed sniper kills of Soviet soldiers accomplished in fewer than 100 days

Soviet

Ivan Sidorenko (WW2) credited with over 500

Fyodor Okhlopkov (WW2) 423 confirmed

Semyon Nomokonov (WW2) 367 confirmed

Abukhadzhi Idrisov (WW2) 349 confirmed plus unknown unconfirmed

Vasily Zaytsev (Battle of Stalingrad) credited with 242

Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin (???) 496 kills

Sri Lankan

Ranjith Premasiri Madalana (Sri Lankan Civil War) 180 kills

Considering how much the U.S. spends on it's military and how much the U.S. is involved in conflict, it seems like there should be a lot more American snipers with high kill totals.

Chris Kyle got his 160 confirmed kills over the course of 4 tours while a lot of snipers with higher totals got their total during a single tour of duty.

I am not trying to glorify these deaths, but I am just curious what circumstances have prevented the U.S. from having more prolific snipers.

if it even was brought to an end, when & why did people stop using it?

I was told at r/history to post this here for better sources:

Back in either 1291 or 1307 (several accounts vary on the specific date) 3 or 33 founders took the Rutli Oath (earlier known as the Oath in the Meadow of Gruth/Grutli). I would like to find a list of these founders. Also, in 1385, at the Battle of Lempach/Sempach, a few hundred Swiss stood against a few thousand Austrians, and won. I'd like a list of the Swiss killed at this battle as well. Several older texts mention such a list exists but I can't find it. The reason why I'm looking for these lists is because in my research into my families lineage, my family name is supposedly mentioned on these lists according to accounts dating back to the 18th century, but I would definitely like to verify. Also, any authentic, original texts on the early formation of the Swiss Confederacy and its history would be very much appreciated. Thank you!

We know that it was depicted using hieroglyphs, but do we have any idea what it sounded like?

Did it share similarities with modern day arabic or any other modern language spoken in the area? What do we know of the grammar and structure of the language from looking at hieroglyphs?

I'm staying on a group of islands off the Georgia coast that claim the last shipment of smuggled slaves arrived in 1865. It has piqued my interest about slave smuggling. Who was involved? How profitable was the trade? What happened to those who were caught?

I feel as though WWII is thought of differently from other conflicts. You hear phrases like "the good war," or "necessary war," thrown around a lot that seem to glorify it and set it apart in our memories. Is this a fair practice? Was WWII really as a unique conflict in any way besides its enormous geographic scale?

This is in reference to common footsoldiers/light cavalry; I am aware of the fact that knights and nobility could have drastically individualised equipment, however what interests me is whether any specific nobles/kings tried to standardise equipment for all of their soldiers, comparable to that of the Roman post-Marian troops or of 18th century line infantry. Thanks in advance.

I'm particularly looking for things about the cultures of the various groups before the invasion as well as what the invasion was like for the Romans.

I've been looking into naval history recently and I've seen that although examples of light cruisers (HMS Belfast, HMS Caroline) and destroyers (HMS Cavalier) have been kept as museum ships, there are no preserved Royal Navy battleships or battlecruisers.

I would have thought that at least HMS Dreadnought may have been preserved due to its historical significance as having changed naval warfare for the first half of the 20th century.

So why is this? Why were some of the lighter warships sold to trusts for preservation whilst the larger ones were not?

I know there was the Sheikh Said rebellion but that was Kurdish and failed. Ataturk made these reforms in the Islamic Ottoman empire, so why didn't they spur a rebellion from the religious Turks?

This is a common thing I hear thrown around about the man, but is it actually true?

In a waiting room, I was reading that "fact book" which stated in Korea till the XXth century it was possible to enslave women but not men. That's the first time I'm seeing such a difference depending on gender. That obviously leads to two queries.

• Is the book right? If yes, what is the story which led to such a rule? Was the rule respected or was it a case where theory and practice differ? If no, was there something which could explain the affirmation?

• Was there such kind of rule elsewhere?

I am interested in the evolution of the firearm in the context of history and specifically technology. What level the local technology was at as the firearms advanced and how they affected each other.

This might be a repost from an earlier thread however I couldn't find the original.

My questions are these:

Why do we call European discovery of the New World genocide and not a conquest, when the term genocide wasn't coined to till the 20th century? And is used controversially in other events like Armenia.

What differentiates the difference between the Huns invading Rome, or Roman expansion to Northern/Central Europe and Spanish colonization of the Americas?

Also if the Europeans did not have intentions of wiping out the Native American population, or knowledge of immunology or diseases then does that give credence that it wasn't a genocide?

I can't remember all the questions of the original post, so if anyone does, please comment.