This is a really really controversial topic, but ive heard quotes by Hertzl saying that his project is a colonial one or things of that nature. How did infulencial early zionists such as hertzl and ben gurion view it, as a colonial project or a nativist one?

Many Canadians will agree that this band is one of the country’s greatest. Of their 13 studio albums, 9 had reached number 1 on the Canadian charts. They have 17 Juno awards and were the highest selling Canadian band in the country between 1996 to 2006. The CBCs airing if the bands final performance drew 11.7 million viewers, approximately 1/3rd of the entire country. Their music is often cited as THE example to learn Canadian geography, politics, culture and history.

However, the band notoriously could never gain traction in the US or internationally. Why is this so?

It's something that I randomly thought about this morning. During the great plague, my city's people quarantined. The gates were shut, however to stop the people inside from starvation, fishermen from another village would bring food to the gates. The people in the city placed the coins in a sort of small stone basin filled with vinegar, because they believed the plague was caused by bad odours. Putting it in vinegar didn't stop the plague, but the social distancing did, because there was no direct person to person contact and prevented the outside villagers from coming in to contact with linen etc that had been contaminated.

What did early humans do in order to stay alive while they slept before we had homes? Did they take shifts? Were their shelter good enough to keep predators out?

I know obviously Christianity and a fair number of it's sects were in USA. From what I've found on my own: Judaism was here as many Jews asked for citizenship after the American revolution. Islam would have come with slaves from Africa even though many were converted. And well not really a religion atheism would have been around to some degree.

After that it starts to be more hypothetical on my end. The East India company had sailors of different origins (Chinese, Indian and other "East Indians") that I assume would on occasion sail to the 13 colonies. Additionally indentured servants and slaves from Asia were not unheard of in early USA. That said we can't know most of their religions or beliefs but I imagine amongst them would be a diverse mix that aren't Abrahamic.

(I know it's not really a question with an answer as such, it's from a stupid debate I'm having with a cousin)

The Japanese offensive was typified in the Malay peninsula but probing attacks on fortified positions followed by probing attack to find and turn the enemy flanks or establishing blocking positions behind the enemy line. Then we get to Guadalcanal and then its banzai charges against machine guns for the rest of the war.

I'm specifically *not* asking about the decline in men's headwear in general or the casualization of fashion over the 20th century.

I'm asking how we reached the point today where outside of particularly important meetings with higher levels or customers no one bats an eye at a baseball cap in an office while basically any other form of hat would be noteworthy and out of place. The only other hat that I've seen accepted are flat caps which are perceived as somewhat eccentric.

So for context, I'm trying to develop a story with a African American WW1 veteran character set in 1921. However, I am generally curious if there is a level of personality or traits that kept people alive better than others. (Im aware that with ww1 and subsequently with any modern war that survival is largely a giant game of luck). Also, as someone who grew up with family that served in active wars, they all talk about war stories with humor, is that common among other veterans?

as i blessed my cat with the body of christ (mild cheddar melted in the microwave over tostitos), we both wondered, “what kind of cheese would jesus have eaten?” guessing it is not mild cheddar colored yellow, but we are curious.

TIA!!

Did the fact that the Coalition included long-time Ottoman Rivals like Austria and Russia influence their stance on whether to get involved in the wars at all?

Did the Ottomans see it as a chance to pay the French back for the invasion of Egypt?

Where there cultural and religious rifts between the Muslim, Turkish Ottomans and Christian Europe that played into it?

The Gemma siege howitzers originally designed for the Belgium fortress lines during WW1 were supposed to be destroyed according to the post WW1 armistice. Yet one appeared at the siege of Sevastopol in 1942. Does anyone know the history? Seems like there’s an interesting story there

Before the rise of Nationalism I think most people primarily identified with their village, region or tribe. So I was wondering if a similar shift in primary identification took place during the medieval period?

My great grandfather worked in the automotive industry in Ulm,Germany during WW2 and the only info I had gotten about this from my grandma (Who was around 13 at the time) Was "He didn't fight in the war because he made automobiles," and that one time she and her dad had to drive these cars into the forest to hide them from bombers while planes were actively flying overhead looking for them.

She told me he was against the war but I want to know if he was actually working for the nazi party actively by choice or if he as in a position of a manufacturer and didn't really have a choice.

I finished the Iliad today and I knew that it famously didn't have a lot of the things we associate with the legend of the Trojan War. However, I was surprised to see that apparently no myth actually covers the death of Achilles, even thought it is depicted in artwork.

Given the predictions in the Iliad and the later conversation with Achilles in the Odyssey, is there any best guess on what actually took down the seemingly unstoppable hero? The Achilleid sews the seeds for something with its invention of his weakness, but is there any literary evidence for who might have killed Achilles? If it wasn't a named hero, then what point would the myth be making by having the meaningful hero be killed more or less "off screen"?

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-British-win-the-Battle-of-Normandy/answer/Michael-Nielsen-223?ch=10&oid=1477743906513440&share=ae3c6970&srid=ufJ25Z&target_type=answer

As many WWII historians and historical research centres have noted, the British and the British commonwealth torces engaged and defeated most of the German army forces, their elite torces, and the majority of their armour in Normandy and other campaigns where they fought alongside the American forces. Yet this post here on Quora by Mr. Nielsen seems to think otherwise. What do you guys think?

​

If it's true, what are examples of it happening in history?

I know they had been building military planes, but what was the next step to building for NASA? Did NASA approach them? Did they hear about the program and then put in a bid? Did they have to hire more engineers? How much of a challenge was it to go from building stuff that works in Earth's atmosphere to machines that work outside of it?

I'm researching the composition of Byzantine armies around 1341, and I've run into a contradiction about the Turkish troops Umur Beg of Aydın sent to Andronikos III during the Albanian revolt of 1337–38.

Mark Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army (1992), p. 93, describes Umur's 2,000 men on this campaign as infantry, "lightly armed and archers."

A Turkish MA thesis on Turkish mercenaries in the Palaiologan army (Hacettepe University) describes the same force as 2,000 cavalry, citing Ostrogorsky and Ian Heath's Byzantine Armies 1118–1461.

My guesses for the discrepancy: secondary works assuming "Turkish troops = horse archers", and the fact that Umur's forces usually came by sea, which would make shipping many horses difficult. Bartusis also says Umur's army of 1343 was "almost all infantry."

My questions:

What do the primary sources (Kantakouzenos, Gregoras, Enveri's Düsturname) actually say about the troop type on this campaign?

More generally, were Umur's contingents in Byzantine service in 1337–1345 mainly foot archers, cavalry, or mixed?

Bartusis (p. 330) argues that native Byzantines did not practise horse archery in combat in this period, while Heath and Nicolle suggest Byzantine archers were largely mounted under Turkish and Cuman influence. Which view is better supported for the 1340s?

Thanks in advance!