I've been wondering for a while, how many battles did the Confederate States win versus the battles the Union won?

Here is something I always wondered about. Presumably towards the end of the war, when the Soviets raced through Poland and closed in on the pre-war border of the Reich, the Wehrmacht (beating a permanent and hasty retreat) captured much fewer Soviet POWs than they did on average throughout the whole war. But they still must have, on occasion, captured Soviet POWs. How were these POWs treated?

We know that Soviet POWs were treated terribly throughout the whole war. But most of the time they weren't murdered on the spot. Instead they were transferred to POW camps in the rear and subjected to a process which often included steps like interrogation, selection for slave work, execution or volunteering for service in collaborationist forces. In the last months or weeks this infrastructure for the processing of POWs surely must have broken down. How were Soviet POWs treated at that time? Was the majority killed on the spot? Did the Germans still make an effort to transfer them to the rear? What happened to them once they reached the rear? Did the situation got significantly worse for the POWs the closer the Soviets got to the Reichstag?

I suppose, the same questions could also be asked for Western Allied POWs on the West Front? Does anyone know good sources where these questions get answered? Thanks in advance!

I'm doing a research project to apply to grad school on religion in America. I decided Mormonism would be a good topic, but i'm trying to narrow it down to a thesis. I recently thought a paper (roughly 25 pages) about the Mormon Wars would be pretty interesting. Some thesis around the "The Jihad of America of 19th century?" Or "The Crusade and Exodus of the Mormon people". Still fresh idea. any who, could you lovely historians aid me in giving good information on what the wars were, how they happened, and anything in between? Also, any directions with primary sources would be awesome. While waiting for replies, that's exactly what i'll be doing. Cheers!

I just recently learned about the presence of temples dedicated to Egyptian deities in Roman cities (specifically Pompeii), and I was wondering if this was a "two way street", so to speak. I know that Romans tended to merge similar religious figures together, but I am also aware that there were certain figures who were unique to each respective culture.

I watched a documentary and it talked about how during the dark ages people would steal stones and what not. After Justinian died Theodora took his place and she caused it, but how?

Were there named trails, rest stops, marked intersections and so forth? How similar would they have been to modern hiking trails? Were there, like, actual roads? You get the idea...

Did someone go to a town and set up a stand to try and recruit soldiers? Were there dedicated recruitment centers?

a

Or in Spain/France/Africa for that matter

I'm Canadian & not overly familiar with US history & until I read Twelve Years a Slave, I had no idea anyone ever used to own slaves in the north. I'm doing a bit of genealogical research and have traced some of my United Empire Loyalist family back to New York State in the mid to late 1700's. Just ordinary land-owning farmers, but what are the odds they would have been slave owners?

Wouldn't it have been easier to keep one city as the capital, so that it would continue to grow without having to uproot and move the existing infrastructure and political institutions several hundred miles from, for instance, Nanjing to Beijing?

edit: grammar

Seeing some things like gigantic mobile artillery guns that the germans used, or the multi-million dollar fighter planes that we are making now, got me wondering what the single biggest endeavor was.

This is a common bone of contention whenever the middle east is discussed and, as to be expected, the answers are usually highly politicized. What historical evidence do we have on the subject?

I've always wondered why a city never sprung up where the Ohio River meets the Mississippi, where Cairo, Illinois, is today. It seems intuitive that this would be a good spot for a city to have arisen, what with this being the junction of two of the longest rivers in the eastern United States. There is St. Louis at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri (or near it, anyway), and New York at the mouth of the Hudson. And of course, further upstream along the Missouri Ohio there are Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh.

It seems like a logical place for a city to have emerged; if not a metropolis, then surely one substantially larger than Cairo which isn't even 3,000 people. But there isn't a big city for 150 miles in either direction along the Mississippi, and twice that to Louisville. Is it simply related to the terrain and the potential for flooding? Or was the Ohio just not that important for navigation and commerce? Or was it something else?

Did Hitler ever discuss the possibility of having Stalin, Churchill, FDR etc assassinated? Seems like it would have been unwise to not at least explore the possibility.

I've heard from some people that Stalin's death was not natural, either because he was directly assassinated or that people took advantage of his already-deteriorating condition to let him die quickly.

Some things:

• His guards were secretly ordered not to enter his room even when they thought something was wrong

• His autopsy showed signs of poisoning

• Beria boasted later that he had killed Stalin

But I'm not sure how much of this stuff is accurate. Any Soviet Union historian care to comment?

During the 14th century, pre battle of Crecy, how did ships fight? Was it bows, ballistae and boarding parties? Did they simply ram into each other like nautical bumper boats until one sunk? Any information on strategy, or what the boats would have been like would be wonderful.

EDIT: I'm specifically looking for information on French, English and Britannic naval warfare 1330-1346.

I want to know what they carried, did they only use their style of composite bow or did they sometimes use a longbow? If they used a longbow was it only on foot or on horseback?