While I despise what Nazi did, I am somewhat awed by their PR campaign. How did they managed to make public turn their back against Jewish war heroes?

I watched a documentary on the War of 1812, and it seems like no one really believed the English would march on Washington. This of course ended up being wrong....

but fastforward a bit, to the Battle of New Orleans. It seems to me that Andrew Jackson had a little bit of time to prepare for the invasion of New Orleans. How did he know that was where the British would go? I mean other than the obvious its a regional target, but it wasn't like he was camped out there since the outset of the war, since he was marching all over Alabama during most of the war.

TL;DR my main question: How did Jackson know the British would assault New Orleans when it did?

Hey guys. I did a search on this topic and read the threads I've found but they didn't answer everything I was curious about. I apologize if this has been specifically answered, but in the threads I read they seemed to focus more on the differences in French/German armies but not on what actually happened in terms of the mobilization, defense, retreat, etc of the French Army at the onset of the war and the German invasion.

It is my understanding that during WW1 and after France was considered a significant military power. Now I read in the other threads they over-focused on outdated artillery based on experiences in WW1 and had very poor tank designs (lacking radios for example). I also understand that the German attack through the Ardennes was unexpected, risky, but paid off very well and the French expected the invasion else where.

However what I still wonder is:

• How many french soldiers were in mainland France at the time of the invasion? (Not in the colonies or North Africa)

• After the initial German invasion why was the fall of the rest of the country so rapid, why were the French unable to hold any "hard spots"?

• Following the German invasion and the British evacuation at Dunkirk what happened to the remaining french forces? Were they completely encircled and captured/destroyed?

• Was the French resistance compromised substantially of soldiers-turned-guerillas or was it predominantly civilians?

• Did any substantial portion of the French forces in mainland France side with the Germans the way the Vichy french did in North Africa?

Basically, in many of the over-views of WW2 I read France seems to of become a non-factor in terms of being a conventional army very rapidly. Is that incorrect, and if not how is it that it became the case?

Basically, what seems confusing to me is it seems like the French had a substantial military, they got unlucky in the opening of the war, but it seems odd to me that their armed forces were so easily swept away.

And specifically, what percentage of front-line soldiers?

Will Roman Christians tolerate my form of Christianity? Or will they view me as a heretic? If I was to be viewed as a heretic, will Romans be willing to conduct business with me?

How common was what we would call terrorism in ancient Rome? They had a lot of territory under their control and, as I understand it, they weren't very popular among many of the peoples that they conquered.

I got to thinking about what the American military contends with in the countries it has a presence in. The US has a lot of military bases in a lot of countries and, like the Romans, American's aren't very popular in a lot of places. There are militias that attack US troops overseas that the united states label as terrorist organizations. Did these kinds of organizations exist in the Roman empire? How/how effectively were they dealt with? Were these rebels labeled as terrorists or something similar by the Roman government?

EDIT: Grammar

It is well known that the majority of Native Americans were killed by plague and disease rather than planned genocide. But how many were actually murdered?

People hold up Rubens as proof that the fuller figure was an object of beauty, but it seems to be that other historical artworks equally celebrate more athletic figures...

To be more specific: were there cases where citizens of the colonizing/imperialist power (be they intellectuals, idealists, or whatnot) played an active part in organized resistance? Not in our day and age, but in the earlier days of the Age of Sail/Age of Exploration periods.

As far as I know there were popes and great thinkers who had strong opinions on the matter, but I was wondering if there were records of more "direct" efforts. My guess is that it seems unlikely, considering the then prevailing world views, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

From the black plague to tuberculosis, doctors would frequently me in the fray of infectious disease outbreaks. Some may have been previously infected and acquired immunity, but I imagine they would have equal mortality rates compared with other people of similar demographics. Is there record of doctors dying at increased rates due to their frequent contact with infected individuals?

kyuio;ugjgxfdjgkhjl;cfghgm,srt

This question just dawned on me yesterday.

Also, does the reverse ever happen? I can't seem to think of any.

• North and South Carolina= King Charles of England
• Georgia= King George II of England
• Louisiana= King Louis XIV of France
• Virginia (and subsequently W. Virginia)= Queen Elizabeth (The Virgin Queen) of England
• Maryland= Queen Henrietta Maria of England

Was there any discussion at all about a change?

If this assertion is wrong, please correct me.

I just wondering this as countries like USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada seem much more successful than most other ex-colonies.

I never heard about the Armenian Genocide until I was a young adult. My question is who is the face of this atrocity?