After all, there's considerably less distance between Russia and North America than there is between western Europe and North America?

For example, was beer or mead available? What were the roles meant for each type of alcohol? Was wine supposed to be used for religious ceremonies only?

I know that generally one addresses the President of the United States as "Mr. President." However, if one has a doctorate, would it be "Dr. President?" Woodrow Wilson was the only President to hold a PhD, but I am unsure of what his honorific actually was.

• How widespread was coverage of the war?
• Were average Americans outraged at the sacking of the capital?
• How did the war shape American notions of nationalism?

I am from Sweden. I have been to Boston and NY many times. I have tried to read up on American history. But I still marvel and can't get my head around the practicalities of building a city like Boston or NY, so fast and out of "nothing"! When people came to this "new continent" what did they bring first? How did they start? Where did they get the resources? Just as an example, a lot of steps are required to make iron. You have to have a mine, it needs to be excavated, there's smelting, casting etc. Again as an example, did people bring ready-made goods over from Europe or did they build out the whole process from the start? How? Reading tips welcome!

I want to know the main topics and understandings that would be covered in an AP class because my school doesn't provide one.

I imagine in the medieval world it would be possible to walk past one's doppelganger and not even realize it, as one would not spend nearly the amount of time gazing upon one's own reflection as a modern person does.

How did the medieval world perceive reflections, and how did this change as mirrors became more common and cheaper to produce?

How did it come to be that there was a Pennsylvania, a New Jersey and a New York etc. with such arbitrary borders even though they were all British and effectively identical (or where they?)?

Weren't the French/Spanish/Portuguese's American holdings large centralized, amorphous blobs? Why not the British's?

How come nothing like the American Revolution happened in Canada, Australia or New Zealand?

How about a little earlier in ashikaga japan?

I have a dbq and don't really understand the question.

It asks "to what extent was late nineteenth and early twentieth century US expansionism a continuation of past united States expansionism and to what extent was it a departure?"

I pretty much understand the documents, but not sure what "past united States expansionism" is supposed to mean. Is it referring to mainland expansion and manifest destiny? Or is there more to it that I'm not seeing? Examples would be nice if you have any.

Also, it consists of everything until 1914

and the steps taken by the Chinese Nationalist and Communist Parties from 1910 and 1955 to try and address them?

I tore ligaments in my feet and it was difficult to move or manage things on my own for many months. Even with modern healthcare. It got me wondering what happens if farmers who live on their own many miles away from other human beings get seriously hurt? How do they manage until their injuries heal?

I can't imagine. I don't think they would know about ice, rehab, etc. Months of not being able to move and they can't get help, they can't work their lands and their supplies are gone. What do they do? If they have other men or grown sons working with them, I suppose they can manage, but if they don't have that or their children are too small?

Hello, I am curious about some of the myths surrounding German armor in the Second World War. Specifically, the performance of the Panther tank. I am somewhat aware of German tanks having a sort of an undeservedly good reputation (and vice versa for their Allied counterparts), but my knowledge is very limited when it comes to this particular big cat.

Often named as one of the best tanks of the war, was the Panther really all that? I realize its frontal armor is good, and its gun had great penetration values, but at the same time it appears to have been very unreliable, too heavy, with poor side armor and a slow turret...

Despite these factors I suppose in some sort of a perfect 1 on 1 head on scenario it would still come out on top against most enemy tanks. But wars are not fought in isolated, laboratory conditions.

So my question is: is the Panther's reputation deserved? Is its overall performance in the war truly so impressive? Or is its armament outweighed by its apparently numerous drawbacks? Again, I am not particularly interested in anecdotes or isolated incidents of a single tank knocking out ten opponents, but a more general verdict.

Just wondering if they were dual global economies working in parallel but separate, or if they were both actually quite integrated into the same global economy.