I know a little bit about the Germans' groundbreaking new tactics (brief artillery barrages, followed swiftly by small unit infiltrations) used during their last big offensive of WW1, but I know next to nothing about what made the Allied '100 Days offensive' special. What did the Allies bring to the table in 1918 that the Germans lacked?

Did the pilgrims even practice slavery? If so, did they bring any with them to the New World?

Why does the United Kingdom control Gibraltar?

I was making dinner this evening, staring at the frying pan, thinking about how easy it is to acquire the food I eat, and then thinking about the fact that everyone else in my town of 2,000 people are doing the same thing, more or less.

When did this really start happening in the US? How far back do we go before we start seeing the majority of families providing at least some of their own food?

I was watching The Knick and was questioning what people did to ring someone else, but tI wasn't sure when America adopted the seven digit number it retained for so long.

This is a question for school and I can't seem to come up with an answer for it.

From what I read Caesar brought 2-3 legions with him on his way to Britain, and that it was more of a successful political stunt. I mean he only went up to the Thames river, won a battle and then went back to Gaul, to gain popularity with the citizens of Rome. So as some of my friends summarize Caesar's conquest, "looky looky where I am, I'm a roman in a spooky land." Also please tell me if I'm missing anything from the actual conquest or if I took a simplistic view of it. Because it seems like it's not an actual invasion or conquest.

Edit:thank you for your great responses.

Aa Bb Dd Ee Gg Hh Ii Mm Nn, etc.

Why are they different characters all together?

Canadian here, so please forgive any naïveté. How did Hawks in the Union convince Congress and the American people to go to war with the Confederacy? I can't imagine people were in favour of getting their sons killed in a remarkably violent war for the sake of some black slaves in the South.

Usually, when one learns about the Roman empire in school, it is in the context of a westernist narrative, where it is said to be (together with Greece) the cradle, or even prefiguring, modern European civilization. Now, I know that this modernization of Rome and Greece is, in part at least, a bourgeois myth, and that institutions like the Republic, Roman Law, or Democracy in Athens were in reality not as progressive as they are made to be in school curriculums; They were, in a way, re-interpreted and reappropiated to fit the revolutionary ideals of the Enlightenment, and to create a mythic past on which to base the new bourgeois societies. Or in Marx's words

"The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire [...] When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it. The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent"

In this way, we've come to think of Rome as inextricably liked to modern Europe. Understandably, I was kind of surprised when I first learned that not only was the Western half of the Empire kind of a periphery to the more developed and urbanized East (Anatolia, Levant, Egypt among other regions), but that northwestern Europe (the place where the bourgeois revolutions first occurred) was itself peripheral to the core regions of the Western Empire (Italy, Northern Africa and Southern Spain). I know that this sort of makes sense when we think that the Empire was first and foremost a Mediterranean geopolitic construct, but it's still weird in a way, as most of those core regions are what we would now call the Islamic world. It's kind of ironic, considering all this Clash of Civilizations rhetoric that's so in fashion right now.

So, how western was the Roman Empire?
Edit: spelling, quote.

I know Shakespeare had a few sayings like "the world is your oyster" and "in a pickle" but what is the absolute oldest sayings still used?

Specifically in the country in which the war was fought, such as Flanders or Mexico, including death by starvation, disease brought by armies, pillage and the like?

I have seen in films and series (like master and Commander / Horatio Hornblower) that ships sometimes did practice broadsides on quiet days. To train for more rapid delivery and reloading of broadsides. But wouldn't this be a giant waste of cannon balls, heavy objects that certainly were quite valuable and not a thing to waste? And if they didn't use cannon balls, wouldn't it still be a giant waste of gunpowder?

Question; did they really practice broadsides? With or without cannon balls? Or is this a very rare event that commanders only did in true times of preparing for a climactic battle?

Due to a variety of reasons, there is the perception that Germany was close to winning the Second World War. This is from arm chair generals seeing battle maps, fetishizing German equipment compared to their allied counter parts, and the perceived superiority of Germany military ability. All of this is similar to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the idea that the South lost only because numbers and industry defeated the South's skill and bravery.

In respect to public perception of history, is Germany the new South in this Modern Lost Cause? Or do people think that Germany was superior to the world in respect to military equipment and tactics?

Was it far and away better than Allied/Soviet aircraft, or just marginally better? If it weren't for the production problems and fuel shortages (that is, had the Germans successfully deployed it in large numbers), might it have significantly altered the course of the war?

What's the history of the lawn and mowing the damn thing?

Answers can be for pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts. From the Spanish-American War to the battle of Jutland.

I mean when did people start studying the past, simply to know about it rather than to repeat some tale that made them or their civilisation look great? Who was the first historian in various cultures and what specifically did they do that qualifies them as a real historian?

This is a twofold question:

• What is the oldest known thing still used for its intended purpose, though the original is gone? For example, parts of the Appian Way or Pictish bog routes are still used as roads, and active religious institutions are often built in the same location as older ones, though I assume the original materials are buried or gone.

• What is the oldest known actual object still in use? For example, if an active road still had Roman-era stones, or if an active temple were built using parts of an old one.