Did they land troops in vast numbers to quickly over run a defensive position? Or did they lay on the beach and wait for breaks in enemy fire to slowly advance? Did they forecast very heavy initial losses if Japanese artillery is just waiting for them to land?

Was he referred to as 'the Great' by his contemporaries, or is that a title contributed to him by a more modern era?

I'm doing an essay that deals with primary sources and that we can't use the internet for and my library doesn't have a whole lot on Sherman. I have his memoirs and a few biographies, but nothing else. I figure some of you might have read a book or two regarding these contemporary observations on him, so if you can answer can you leave a book title so I can cite it? Thanks in advance!

I am wondering if certain food became more popular in China after or during the Cultural Revolution or if certain recipes or culinary traditions actually ceased to exist or became more rare.

I know that is a broad question. So maybe just a basis and information, and then some reading material, or documentaries?

Reading up on historic events such as wars made me wonder: How did people communicate internationally, over such long distances?

Did it take weeks or even months to send a message to a country across the globe declaring war?

How did soldiers find out that the war was over, if it was declared over while they were on the battlefield? Another good example: Great Britain and India had relations dating back to the 1600s. That is a pretty long distance to have such a relation with another country.

(Sorry for oddly worded title, have no idea how else to say it.) Since English is heavily influenced by German (although in a very different form than today's German) and French, two languages with noun genders, I have been rather confused about the lack of them in English.

My fiance and I just started watching "Turn", the period piece set during the Revolutionary War. In one of the first scenes a soldier refers to "the British". Is that historically correct?

I'm currently working on a paper and am reading through my primary sources to better understand the topic. However, I lack any expertise on the topic and was hoping that perhaps someone could break down some of the basic principle's to guide me in my readings. I'm currently trying to analyze the Stele of Vultures, Stele of Hammurabi, Deuteronomy, and Samuel.

What It seems to me is that certain kings validated their kingship by claiming to have the divine right to kingship. Then they simply went on to do whatever they wanted for their own agendas.

Thanks a ton.

In school we are reading a lot about segregation in the 50's and 60's ,but was it worth for big corporations at the time? Where they losing money because of it and overall was it worth it for the federal government to enforce this, by constructing two separate buildings? Correct me if i'am wrong.

I'm not asking about why groups immigrated to America in this time period, but rather how it happened.

America was, to my knowledge, very anti-immigrant, so how did these immigration waves keep happening?

As a History major now, ive heard lots of people say that they wasted their time in college and that their degree doesnt even apply to their current job. Im planning on getting my teacher certification to teach Higschool and eventually get a masters to teach college. Thanks!

I know America's rise is attributed to the insanely rich natural resources available, but what were the real thoughts flowing through the nation's leaders' heads when they ordered more and more military power? Pressure from England?