I'm watching a documentary on American history. It said that there was unprecedented bloodshed because they used a new, deadlier type of bullet with more accurate weapons. This was particularly deadly because the tactics they were using hadn't adapted to the new weapons and soldiers did a lot of standing and shooting at one another.

This stood out to me because a decent part of our success against Britain during the revolution was because of hit and run tactics. It also stated that the south was outnumber more than three to one. How did the south deal with being so outnumbered if soldiers were standing and shooting? It seems like those tactics would rely on having more soldiers firing more bullets.

Obviously this was the debut of a lot of technologies that really ended up flourishing in the Second World War, but my question is whether or not they really played a decisive role in the end of the first one.

This year marks the anniversary of 50 years of the military coup that ousted president Goulart. It was alleged that he was a communist sympathiser and that Brazil was in the brink of a revolution. How much of this is true?

Ho come most of Ireland was christian by the 6th century despite little to none Roman contact, and Irish missionairies had to christianize other parts of Europe (Great-Britain, Low countries, Germania, Gaul) that had more contact with Roman culture and thus christianity?

If so could you explain when, why, and what regions of the country it occurred. Any sources on the event would be much appreciated.

I was wondering about this when brushing my teeth this morning. Was mint always associated with fresh breath or is this something recent?

Aristotle held the Carthaginian form of government in high regard. But I get the impression that one of the main reasons that Carthage lost to Rome was their government's disinterest in a grand coordinated military strategy. Is this plausible?

Broadly my question is how effective was the Carthaginian government, primarily in millitary matters?

I was thinking, did the Romans recruit locals or was it a pure Italian army? For example somehow they had enough men to cover all of Europe and even occupy forts in north Scotland.

I assumed they wouldn't recruit natives as they could rebel etc.

I think the obvious answer to this question is no, that noble blood has no inherent "better" properties to separate it from peasant blood. That the only really difference is the way different wealth classes are raised and live day to day - that if anything, constant "noble" breeding among a select population had instead lead to matchups within one's own family line, leading to weaker genes if anything.

But there is just such ubiquitous fixation on discriminating for "pure" and "noble" bloodlines throughout history over cultures across the world (still seen even today) that I can't help but second guess myself if there really may have been some special property to noble blood. Mayhaps in the past? Before bloodlines became increasingly mixed over time?

So is there answer to whether or not noble genes/royal blood ever had a difference that legitimized its separation it from common blood?

To expand on this question, I've noticed that in many instances in history, there may often be "take-overs" where one noble ruling power becomes unseated. And what ends up happening is that the take-overs, be they from significant lineage or not, will suddenly be the new "noble" power. I think occurrences like these demonstrate that noble blood has no real difference from common blood (as they can interchange, ie a noble celt would be a common roman), but more revealingly, bring up the question of: why was noble blood such a commonly used claim to legitimacy?

I'm too young to have been around after he was impeached. How was he seen to the public? I know he was mocked, but for example: Did the country mourn after he died? Was he still viewed as a good political theorist? (If that's the right terminology) Was he still a respectable man? Were people ever excited to meet him?

A google search only led me to information about his impeachment. Nothing after.

I've been trying to find out how a small group of individuals would travel in approx. 1190. From my research on Google I've looked at maps from the third crusade which shows both boat and land travel, but I'm not sure if someone not involved in the crusades would take those routes or not. Additionally, I've not been able to discover how long it would have taken, as I've seen sources which say from one year to three.

Hello

I always think of the USA as being Israels main ally both politically and militarily.

However I was reading some about the 60ties and 70ties wars in the middle east and during this period it seems Israel was largely armed with French advanced planes (Mirages)?

It also seems that France helped with the Israeli nuclear program?

Could anyone explain how this fits together? What French interests did this support serve?

I've always been interested on the impact that re-unification has had on Germany, rather, the impact of the split. Did people like the split at the time/when they were unified? What was its impact?

I've been wondering this for awhile... thanks if you can shed a little light on this for me!

Or would he have simply been tried at Nuremberg?

Things I'm especially interested in hearing about:

Did Canadians have a narrative comparable to Manifest Destiny?

Did the interactions of westward migrants and natives differ from the patterns seen in the US? If so, how?

Were the economic motivations of Canadian settlers similar to those of settlers in the US?

This question came up in one of my classes and no one could really answer it.

In the equal field system in Tang/Song China the land was split upon the owner's death among others, that part was clear to us. What we couldn't find though it did the (wealthy) land owner's family inheritor have any say in what land he received during this change, or was in government decided? Surely some land must be more arable then others from all of which that they own, as some would be more preferred to keep than others.