It obviously couldn't have happened in one day, and some slaveowners must have refused to give up slavery.

A while ago I read John Keegan's The First World War, in which he goes into great detail on Schlieffen's 1905 "Great Memorandum". Keegan's text implies, to me at least, that the Great Memorandum outlined a supremely-detailed plan of operations for the rapid defeat of France, down to the bridges to be crossed and the roads to be followed, but one that couldn't have worked: according to Keegan, Schlieffen knew that Belgium and France's road network wasn't extensive enough to deploy the huge number of troops he needed to defeat France, and that he literally made the divisions required magically appear at the decisive point on his maps. Nevertheless, the plan was approved for use out of a collective obsession among the German General Staff to rapidly defeat France before turning on the Russian Steamroller inexorably closing on East Prussia.

How accurate is this? I am told that recent research has discredited the notion that there actually was a Schlieffen Plan to defeat France and more of a series of deployment plans to which were appended recommendations to commanders for operations, but I have had difficulty finding anything that might reconcile this with Keegan's thesis, if it can be reconciled at all. Enlighten me, /r/AskHistorians!

There'd obviously be a difference between where, when and how long we're talking about. Are there any specific numbers for Gaul in particular, because that's roughly the timeframe I was thinking about while coming up with the question.

On a related note, in HBO's Rome Vorenus states in S1 E02 that he killed 309 fighting men, not counting civilians. This would of course include, mentioned somewhere in the thread, executions and all the other ways having to kill people in war. It's most likely exaggerated, but is it a realistic number for being at the high end?

I'm looking forward to reading the answers!

Edit: specified the Rome reference.

Hello,

I'm looking for information on Noah's Ark. We are looking to build a small replica (about the size of a coffee table) of the Ark for a display. We'd be making it out of wood.

• What would the boat have looked like? Noah was Mesopotamian right, so what sort of boats would they have been making. It's often shown as bulbous with a flat bottom, I was under the impression that ships that large would have to be deep and narrowed at the bottom to prevent capsizing (can't remember where I heard that)

• What were the boat's dimensions? How large would it be, and how many floors/decks

• Is there anything else to keep in mind when building this?

Thank you for your help.

I have read a fair bit around this topic and am hoping to find more to say than merely battle of Poltava etc.

If Germany had managed to retain territorial gains when they invaded North Africa, it would have provided strategic naval/air positions. However, did Germany have any other goals in mind during their relatively short occupation of the North Africa?

Why did Britain declare war on the Nazis but not the Soviet Union after invading Poland?

I could see "bombs" as cannon shots, but I thought Rocket weapons were not used until WWII? (V-2, Stalin's Organ?)

If Joseph asked Pilatus to retrieve Jesus' corpse it means he must have had access to Roman elite in Palestine. Would not have Joseph been seen by Pilatus as another potential trouble maker? Would not have Joseph been reprimanded by the Sanhedrin itself with such an action?

At around the time of Adrianople, many people start to consider the Barbarian soldiers (especially the Goths) as superior to the Romans. I know that the Roman military at this time wasn't what it used to be. Foederati were also being hired much more frequently and sometimes Barbarians were being made into Generals, like Stilicho for example. Were they actually better, or were the Romans just extremely weak and depleted at this point?

Specifically WWI and WWII, but any wars of the past.

Did they share resources? Did they fight in the same trenches? Did they get transport from allied vehicles/ships(in ancient times)? Did medics treat allies? Did they fight physically next to one another? Did they share bases? etc.

I haven't been able to find answers to questions like the above. All I really know is that having an ally helped give you more strength against the opponent. Don't know the specifics though.

Thank you.

It seems as though it was defeated twice and nobody took the entirety of the land. Why was that? Seems like an easy cause to support at the time given the amount of conquering Germany was doing.

I've been listening to the Everly Brothers recently, and they often speak of crying, and the fact that they are so popular indicates that they weren't likely mocked for it too often.

However, now, the media criticizes men for crying, calling them little girls or children.

When did this shift occur for men?

Edit: In America, I know many countries still see it as acceptable for men to cry.

I've just finished watching "Apocalypse, the First World War", and read some articles about the figure of Kaiser Wilhelm II. I have some questions and I would be very glad if I could get some answers or information/links.

Thank you very much in advance.

· When Austro-Hungary sends an ultimatum to Serbia, Russia sends troops to their Austro-Hungarian border. I know Germany was obliged to defend Austro-Hungary, but why the attack on the west front and France? I know the Franco-German relations were difficult, but wasn't this totally unjustified? It seems to me that Germany really wanted to declare war on France even if there wasn't Casus Belli. Also, why attacking through Belgium, when they knew it would instantly trigger the entrance of UK in the war?

· Around the end of 1917, beginning 1918, German and French troops in the western front were exhausted, starving and sick. Furthermore, the Germans hadn't really advanced much in three years of war. I know there had been peace talks offered by French and Britons. Why did the Germans not accept the talks? Was it because the French wanted Alsace-Lorraine back or was it because any other reason? Why did Germany keep pushing on the front when it was very clear that advances were going to be difficult if not impossible? Can the Kaiser Whilhelm II be blamed for pointlessly prolonging the war?

My English is not the best, so if you need any clarification I will gladly do so.

Thank you in advance and cheers!

*what