My choice would be the Emperor Charles V. In spite of all his beliefs, deeds and achievements, he seems to have had no personality at all.
Who was the most boring person in history?
well its not history persay but ben stein bores me horribly, him, his voice..uuhhgg..
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/
Who was the most boring person in history?
faris bueler
Reply:Jim L
Reply:Millard Filmore. The only thing interesting about him is his name. Because it's boring.
The most boring thing is the Bank of the United States (ca. 1800). I always doze off on that one and I was teaching it!
Reply:I can't name a specific person, but anyone who gets in a group and does 50% or more of the talking is a bore. Also, anyone who can't ask a question without phrasing it in 50-75 words is a bore.
Reply:BOB
Reply:i am sure....ITS YOU.
Reply:There was a philosopher in ancient Mesopotamia who was soooo boring no one even knows his name, it wasn't worth recording. In fact he was so unremarkable, some claim he was invisible. I can't prove it, but I imagine he caused Narcolepsy in everyone he encountered.
Reply:Joe Monroe from Ohio
Reply:Taft, all he is know for is getting stuck in the white house bath tub.
Reply:I think the title should go to Alex Douglas-Home, our Prime minister for less than a year starting October 1963.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-903...
He took over from Harold McMillan who resigned from ill health, probably exacerbated by the 'Profumo' scandal, only to be beaten by Harold Wilson less than a year later.
Reply:you
Reply:Without her pratfalls, Hillary Clinton would be extremely boring. Al Gore too - he has tried frantically to adopt fashionable opinions to make himself seem less boring LOL.
The British murderer Denis Nilson was said to have committed his crimes in order to have some body (!) to listen to his boring ideas. Calvin Coolidge was fairly boring too by all accounts.
Reply:you
Reply:Hi Jim.
I never met Emperor Charles V so I am not able to say if he was boring or not.
To answer your question, I would have to say I am, given that I am answering this question.
Good luck my friend,
Cathorio.
Reply:That would probably be a bureacrat somewhere whose name was not recorded for posterity.
Seriously, most people could be considered boring from a historical point of view. Boring is not necessarily bad.
Reply:The inventor of the pneumatic drill. It's still boring all over the world.
Reply:I'd have to say Tony Blair but I don't know if he counts while he's still alive, but he should.
History
Friday, November 6, 2009
What influence did john dewy have on 20th centruy education?
checfk out this web site you'll get all your answers
http://wilderdom.com/experiential/JohnDe...
What influence did john dewy have on 20th centruy education?
What she said...
http://wilderdom.com/experiential/JohnDe...
What influence did john dewy have on 20th centruy education?
What she said...
How is medieval society organised under feudalism (medieval hierarchy)?
im doin revision for an exam so i need an answers kinda ASAP. plesz and thanku
How is medieval society organised under feudalism (medieval hierarchy)?
Medieval society consisted of three classes known as the
three estates: those who fight. those who pray. those who labour. So basically you have the nobles that is the king and the nobility which included the knights. the priests,bishops etc.and the rest of the people who were the peasants. The peasants owed their allegiance to their lord and the lords owed their allegiance to the king. The peasants were expected to do four things
a/ grow and provide food for the nobles
b/ provide services to the nobles
c/ pay taxes
d/go to war when commanded to by their lord.
How is medieval society organised under feudalism (medieval hierarchy)?
Medieval society consisted of three classes known as the
three estates: those who fight. those who pray. those who labour. So basically you have the nobles that is the king and the nobility which included the knights. the priests,bishops etc.and the rest of the people who were the peasants. The peasants owed their allegiance to their lord and the lords owed their allegiance to the king. The peasants were expected to do four things
a/ grow and provide food for the nobles
b/ provide services to the nobles
c/ pay taxes
d/go to war when commanded to by their lord.
STOLEN GENERATION........ please help?
what happened to the kids who were taken away, and how long were they taken away before they could reunite with their parents ... if they ever could?
STOLEN GENERATION........ please help?
Please elaborate..
STOLEN GENERATION........ please help?
Where were they taken away from?
Reply:In the case of the stolen generation in Australia .. they were first of all put into special 'schools' then farmed out as cheap labour usually as servants or farmworkers. In the case of sisters or brothers and sisters they were often separated too from each other. For the majority of the children , even after they had become adults, they had no way of contacting their parents again. The results were traumatic for both the parents and the children.
The 1997 'Stolen Children' report otherwise called the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Learning about the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and their families
gives the details of why and how it happened and the pretty dreadful results
There has been heated debate between different interest groups about the report - but just after the last election in Australia the first speech that the Prime Minister made in Parliament was the 'Sorry' speech, It was supported too by the Leader of the opposition.
People all around the country got into groups to watch it together - many opened their homes to indigenous peoples from the remote communities so that they could come to Canberra and be together outside of parliament and celebrate together.
Now comes the hard work of how to make good, in a practical way, the evils that were done.
STOLEN GENERATION........ please help?
Please elaborate..
STOLEN GENERATION........ please help?
Where were they taken away from?
Reply:In the case of the stolen generation in Australia .. they were first of all put into special 'schools' then farmed out as cheap labour usually as servants or farmworkers. In the case of sisters or brothers and sisters they were often separated too from each other. For the majority of the children , even after they had become adults, they had no way of contacting their parents again. The results were traumatic for both the parents and the children.
The 1997 'Stolen Children' report otherwise called the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Learning about the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and their families
gives the details of why and how it happened and the pretty dreadful results
There has been heated debate between different interest groups about the report - but just after the last election in Australia the first speech that the Prime Minister made in Parliament was the 'Sorry' speech, It was supported too by the Leader of the opposition.
People all around the country got into groups to watch it together - many opened their homes to indigenous peoples from the remote communities so that they could come to Canberra and be together outside of parliament and celebrate together.
Now comes the hard work of how to make good, in a practical way, the evils that were done.
Please clarify ..Western Medieval art?
What were the three main influences,christianity included that contributed to the historical development of Western Medieval art, and how did these combine to produce Hiberno-Saxon art style in England?
It Jobs
It Jobs
Is it just a coinencidence that great people have great names? Rockefeller, Churchhill...you know what I mean!
Like why do successful or famous people have cool names; do owners of huge corporations and stuff change their names too? Like Rockefeller, I mean he had to know that was a cool name, was that really his name originally? Am I the only one who has thought of this??!
Is it just a coinencidence that great people have great names? Rockefeller, Churchhill...you know what I mean!
Allot of cool sounding names are original and allot are legally changed to hopefully cool sounding names.. Vanity at it's best...
Is it just a coinencidence that great people have great names? Rockefeller, Churchhill...you know what I mean!
Its an interesting thought and I dont specifically know about Rockefeller or Churchill but I think that its pretty random. Its possible theres a connection about having a good name and becoming famous because if you have a good name you're more likely to be noticed. Also people would much rather listen to a speech by someone named Churchill than Bush
Reply:Many just changed their name. Stalin means steal but he wasn't born with that name.
Reply:Yeah, and no at the same time.
Thats a roman thing "Nomen est omen" and in the nippon
language "itai" means %26lt;dead body%26gt;
Asia is a trend worldwide, and- not I mean, -but your instinct
about past greatness about names just turn those names
caracterised as deactivated, defamed - by great asian names :if they give names a favor at all, prior talent.
Reply:"Great people have great names"? You're joking, right? And using Rockefeller as an example -- his first name was "Nelson"; that's just about as pedestrian as you can get.
A short list of Great (Famous) People with not-so-great names:
H.L. Mencken
Ignatius Donnelly
Wolcott Gibbs
Philip Stubbes
Colley Cibber
Hortense Calisher
Immanuel Kant
John Gay
Erich Fromm
Emily Carr
Henry Adams
Henry Miller
Martin Luther
Louis Riel
Having a "cool" name doesn't mean you will be "great" -- and being "great" doesn't require having a "cool" name. Unless you are an actor in Hollywood, in which case it's all about personal vanity anyway.
Reply:Yes, thats interesting - lots of hard, masculine, consonants and well balanced phonemes - not many feminine 'flowing' sounds in those examples......
.....and wouldn't it be good if there were 'Flo Bloggs' medals instead of 'Nobel' prizes?
I suppose the 'Oscar' is the nearest to a silly name that's associated with fame and honour.
When the powerful western countries were predominantly Anglo-Celtic - it was common for people to change (or for immigration officials to change) their names, so lots of the more mellifluous names from Spain, Mexico or India were exchanged for the harder -edged more 'anglo' sounding ones.
Its pretty common knowledge that the epitome of masculinty in 1950-70s Hollywood, John Wayne, was originally Marion something.
Wonder if Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, or Brad Pitt are their given names
Reply:it really not the names, it''s what we read into them.
The name "Chamberlain" has the same stylistic sense that Rockefeller and Churchill has, but it has negative connotations because of former PM Neville Chamberlain's mistaken faith in Hitler's word.
We perceive them to be "Cool" because of our cultural biases and conditioning.
To the Romans, the name Caesar had the same effect as "Churchill" or "Rockefeller" has. "Caesar" literally means "a full head of hair". It was actually a cognomen, or "nickname" applied to members of an obscure branch of the Julian clan, but because of one man, Gaius Julius Caesar, the name has come to mean ultimate Imperial power, a "Caesar" or "Emperor", (although the literal meaning is somewhat ironic, since Julius Caesar was rather bald in his middle age).
It is the association with Caesar, the soldier and conqueror that we associate with Emperors and Empires; and its eventual Slavic %26amp; European derivations: "Czar", and "Kaiser" only reinforce that perception. Similarly, "Rockefeller" gives us an impression of absolute wealth, while "Churchillian" connotes steadfastness.
"What's in a name?" Shakespeare asked. The answer is: "whatever we read into it".
Is it just a coinencidence that great people have great names? Rockefeller, Churchhill...you know what I mean!
Allot of cool sounding names are original and allot are legally changed to hopefully cool sounding names.. Vanity at it's best...
Is it just a coinencidence that great people have great names? Rockefeller, Churchhill...you know what I mean!
Its an interesting thought and I dont specifically know about Rockefeller or Churchill but I think that its pretty random. Its possible theres a connection about having a good name and becoming famous because if you have a good name you're more likely to be noticed. Also people would much rather listen to a speech by someone named Churchill than Bush
Reply:Many just changed their name. Stalin means steal but he wasn't born with that name.
Reply:Yeah, and no at the same time.
Thats a roman thing "Nomen est omen" and in the nippon
language "itai" means %26lt;dead body%26gt;
Asia is a trend worldwide, and- not I mean, -but your instinct
about past greatness about names just turn those names
caracterised as deactivated, defamed - by great asian names :if they give names a favor at all, prior talent.
Reply:"Great people have great names"? You're joking, right? And using Rockefeller as an example -- his first name was "Nelson"; that's just about as pedestrian as you can get.
A short list of Great (Famous) People with not-so-great names:
H.L. Mencken
Ignatius Donnelly
Wolcott Gibbs
Philip Stubbes
Colley Cibber
Hortense Calisher
Immanuel Kant
John Gay
Erich Fromm
Emily Carr
Henry Adams
Henry Miller
Martin Luther
Louis Riel
Having a "cool" name doesn't mean you will be "great" -- and being "great" doesn't require having a "cool" name. Unless you are an actor in Hollywood, in which case it's all about personal vanity anyway.
Reply:Yes, thats interesting - lots of hard, masculine, consonants and well balanced phonemes - not many feminine 'flowing' sounds in those examples......
.....and wouldn't it be good if there were 'Flo Bloggs' medals instead of 'Nobel' prizes?
I suppose the 'Oscar' is the nearest to a silly name that's associated with fame and honour.
When the powerful western countries were predominantly Anglo-Celtic - it was common for people to change (or for immigration officials to change) their names, so lots of the more mellifluous names from Spain, Mexico or India were exchanged for the harder -edged more 'anglo' sounding ones.
Its pretty common knowledge that the epitome of masculinty in 1950-70s Hollywood, John Wayne, was originally Marion something.
Wonder if Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, or Brad Pitt are their given names
Reply:it really not the names, it''s what we read into them.
The name "Chamberlain" has the same stylistic sense that Rockefeller and Churchill has, but it has negative connotations because of former PM Neville Chamberlain's mistaken faith in Hitler's word.
We perceive them to be "Cool" because of our cultural biases and conditioning.
To the Romans, the name Caesar had the same effect as "Churchill" or "Rockefeller" has. "Caesar" literally means "a full head of hair". It was actually a cognomen, or "nickname" applied to members of an obscure branch of the Julian clan, but because of one man, Gaius Julius Caesar, the name has come to mean ultimate Imperial power, a "Caesar" or "Emperor", (although the literal meaning is somewhat ironic, since Julius Caesar was rather bald in his middle age).
It is the association with Caesar, the soldier and conqueror that we associate with Emperors and Empires; and its eventual Slavic %26amp; European derivations: "Czar", and "Kaiser" only reinforce that perception. Similarly, "Rockefeller" gives us an impression of absolute wealth, while "Churchillian" connotes steadfastness.
"What's in a name?" Shakespeare asked. The answer is: "whatever we read into it".
Help with History!?
How far do the levels of unemployment in the Weimar Republic explain the rise of the Nazi to power?
There needs to be why they do, and reasons they might not! :D
Help with History!?
Hitler came to power in Germany for one main reason, among many others; the weakness of the Weimar Rep and the poverty caused by the war reparations of WW1. Hitler made a lot of promises to the people and fulfilled almost all of them. One of said problems was a huge unemployment rate due to the lack of economic influence and government intervention in the Weimar Republic. Under Hitler, the economy - controled by the government - flourished. Then people could get jobs and feed both themselves and their families. This is how the unemployed population of the Weimar Republic helped Hitler come to power.
There needs to be why they do, and reasons they might not! :D
Help with History!?
Hitler came to power in Germany for one main reason, among many others; the weakness of the Weimar Rep and the poverty caused by the war reparations of WW1. Hitler made a lot of promises to the people and fulfilled almost all of them. One of said problems was a huge unemployment rate due to the lack of economic influence and government intervention in the Weimar Republic. Under Hitler, the economy - controled by the government - flourished. Then people could get jobs and feed both themselves and their families. This is how the unemployed population of the Weimar Republic helped Hitler come to power.
How did hitler help the nazi party to power & Did his childhood have any relations to what he did in his life?
The title says it all.
Post anything and everything that is related to this topic even if it's just by a little.
Posting where you got the information will be also very helpful and maybe even a link to the site will be very appreciated.
I am doing an assignment due in 3 weeks and i'm willing to use any information given to me. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
How did hitler help the nazi party to power %26amp; Did his childhood have any relations to what he did in his life?
Hitler was an amazing orator(speaker), who used his words and body language to sway crowds because he looked so committed to his ideas. After WWI, Hitler was incensed by the lack of any attempt to barter a better deal. Germany was left in ruins, and this caused many to grow in hatred of many people, Jews included. Hitler's book Mein Kampf was his putting to words what he felt.
As a child, Hitler was aspiring to be an artist. He had no real hatred in him. At one point though, he was denied admission into a prestigious art school in Austria I believe.
See...if they had just let him in, no World War II!!
Post anything and everything that is related to this topic even if it's just by a little.
Posting where you got the information will be also very helpful and maybe even a link to the site will be very appreciated.
I am doing an assignment due in 3 weeks and i'm willing to use any information given to me. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
How did hitler help the nazi party to power %26amp; Did his childhood have any relations to what he did in his life?
Hitler was an amazing orator(speaker), who used his words and body language to sway crowds because he looked so committed to his ideas. After WWI, Hitler was incensed by the lack of any attempt to barter a better deal. Germany was left in ruins, and this caused many to grow in hatred of many people, Jews included. Hitler's book Mein Kampf was his putting to words what he felt.
As a child, Hitler was aspiring to be an artist. He had no real hatred in him. At one point though, he was denied admission into a prestigious art school in Austria I believe.
See...if they had just let him in, no World War II!!
Is nationalism a positive or negative force as seen in world history from the 17th to 20th century?
Negative. Nationalism is defined loyalty and devotion to a nation or ethnic group that places emphasis on promoting the interests, cultural and social values, or religion of one group above all others. This is a bad thing as WW1%26amp;2 were started as people cared more about there countries than people as a whole. If we all cared about just our countries lots of people would starve and die, people would have unspeakable things done to them. eg the East Timorese would have been massacred or turned to slaves if peace keepers had only been concerned with there own country.
Where did ave maria originate from?
It originated in the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages in Rome Italy. It is a song about the intersession of Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Where did ave maria originate from?
For most of the words, see the first chapter of Luke.
Where did ave maria originate from?
For most of the words, see the first chapter of Luke.
What forces from 17th to 19th centuries contributed to a more liberal west?
examples of people, events, ideas, political and economic examples, etc.
What forces from 17th to 19th centuries contributed to a more liberal west?
Have a look on wikipedia under 'the enlightenment'
What forces from 17th to 19th centuries contributed to a more liberal west?
17th century English Civil War, and then the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England.
18th century. American War of independence, French Revolution
19th century - new nations created throughout Europe and the Americas as the people broke away from the empires and colonial powers that previously controlled them..
but there were darker aspects that led to the creation of these 'liberal societies' too.
The independence of the new agricultural middle classes in the Agricultural Revolutions of the 14th-19th centuries, which brought wealth to the new 'sheep farmers' came at the cost of the 'Enclosures of the Commons' which deprived farm labourers the rights they'd had for centuries to a subsistence living from the land.
The rights to independent merchants to engage in trade free of the Crown brought them wealth, but centred around the Slave Trade in the 'Golden Triangle' between Britain, Africa, and the Americas.
The freedoms of 19th century businessmen to use the wealth of their families as 'free individuals' occurred only when they were given absolute rights over their wives' property and income.
The spread of 'western societies' across the West in the North Americas, Australia, India and further into Asia - disrupted and in some cases destroyed whole cultures and peoples.
These 'freedoms' were underpinned by the philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Adam Smith.
What forces from 17th to 19th centuries contributed to a more liberal west?
Have a look on wikipedia under 'the enlightenment'
What forces from 17th to 19th centuries contributed to a more liberal west?
17th century English Civil War, and then the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England.
18th century. American War of independence, French Revolution
19th century - new nations created throughout Europe and the Americas as the people broke away from the empires and colonial powers that previously controlled them..
but there were darker aspects that led to the creation of these 'liberal societies' too.
The independence of the new agricultural middle classes in the Agricultural Revolutions of the 14th-19th centuries, which brought wealth to the new 'sheep farmers' came at the cost of the 'Enclosures of the Commons' which deprived farm labourers the rights they'd had for centuries to a subsistence living from the land.
The rights to independent merchants to engage in trade free of the Crown brought them wealth, but centred around the Slave Trade in the 'Golden Triangle' between Britain, Africa, and the Americas.
The freedoms of 19th century businessmen to use the wealth of their families as 'free individuals' occurred only when they were given absolute rights over their wives' property and income.
The spread of 'western societies' across the West in the North Americas, Australia, India and further into Asia - disrupted and in some cases destroyed whole cultures and peoples.
These 'freedoms' were underpinned by the philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Adam Smith.
Did columbus really discover america i say no?
actual he discovered cuba which is off the coast of america also i am 13 wjat i think i think he just colnize cuba and other foreiners came and discover please give me your view
Did columbus really discover america i say no?
When he arrived there were already people there right? So technically he did not. The indians did......!
Did columbus really discover america i say no?
no. amerigo vespucci
Reply:Columbus didn't discover America because it wasn't lost.
Reply:You cant discover something when some already discovered it. Columbus was lost anyways and thought he was in Asia. Silly fool he was...
Reply:THE NATIVE AMERICANS DID
Reply:NO the chinese were here first the spaniard found some artifacts of the coast of California that were originally from China. So to answer your questions the first one to come to America were the orientals.
Reply:no, leif erikson did!
Reply:Columbus discovered America for the people in Europe but the Indians(Native Americans) were here first and traveled from Asia(supposedly)so you are partly right and partially not it is just how you look at the question and how deep you go into it.
Reply:The island of Cuba is part of the geographical land mass that is North America.
But why all the subjectivity over the word "discovery"? Yes natives where already here; that doesn't mean it wasn't a discovery. If I found gold at the end of a rainbow it would still be a discovery despite leprechans being there first.
Reply:Columbus actually landed on the Eastern coast of the Dominican Republic. The city of Santo Domingo most likely. It is nicknamed the First City of the New World and is rumored to house the body of Columbus in a museum (Spain also says they have the body though)
Reply:There are several claimants for the discovery of America; Columbus, Leif Erikson, and Native American Indians. The answer depends on what you are really asking about. Did you mean, "Who was here in America first?" Or did you mean, "Who was the first European to find America?" Or was the question really "Which explorer journeyed to America and opened the way for colonization?" Here is a link to a homeschool lesson that lists several different sites about the discovery of America so that you can research the different claims and decide for yourself:
Reply:Columbus landed on America by accident , he thought he was in India which is why the natives were called indians.
Columbus was a fool and a very ordinary sailor and the only legacy he and his crew bought to the inhabitants was syphillus, ghonnorhea, pox, measles and several other diseases.
Columbus did more harm to the local population by intermingling than if he had shot them (thay did that as well)
The Vikings, The Knights templars and others had been to America long before Columbus.
He did NOT discover America , that is the sanatised white bread version of history , he accidentally landed on the continent and devastated the local population , that is the real version.
He bought nothing of value and took away a lot.
Reply:- The Americas is all of the western hemisphere, so that point is wrong.
- Columbus mostly landed at Hispanola, which is now Dominican Republic and Hait. He touched down at other islands on his other trips.
- He died not long long after his last trip, so he really didn't get into the colonizing end of things.
- Indigenous peoples "discovered" the Americas, not Europeans
Reply:well.. the indians were the first people to come to america, followed by the vikings ( who actually "discovered" america), there is also evidence that the chinese were on the west coast o mexico during the early 1400's. So my answer is no, colombus did not actually discover america, there were many here before he was even born.
metal necklace
Did columbus really discover america i say no?
When he arrived there were already people there right? So technically he did not. The indians did......!
Did columbus really discover america i say no?
no. amerigo vespucci
Reply:Columbus didn't discover America because it wasn't lost.
Reply:You cant discover something when some already discovered it. Columbus was lost anyways and thought he was in Asia. Silly fool he was...
Reply:THE NATIVE AMERICANS DID
Reply:NO the chinese were here first the spaniard found some artifacts of the coast of California that were originally from China. So to answer your questions the first one to come to America were the orientals.
Reply:no, leif erikson did!
Reply:Columbus discovered America for the people in Europe but the Indians(Native Americans) were here first and traveled from Asia(supposedly)so you are partly right and partially not it is just how you look at the question and how deep you go into it.
Reply:The island of Cuba is part of the geographical land mass that is North America.
But why all the subjectivity over the word "discovery"? Yes natives where already here; that doesn't mean it wasn't a discovery. If I found gold at the end of a rainbow it would still be a discovery despite leprechans being there first.
Reply:Columbus actually landed on the Eastern coast of the Dominican Republic. The city of Santo Domingo most likely. It is nicknamed the First City of the New World and is rumored to house the body of Columbus in a museum (Spain also says they have the body though)
Reply:There are several claimants for the discovery of America; Columbus, Leif Erikson, and Native American Indians. The answer depends on what you are really asking about. Did you mean, "Who was here in America first?" Or did you mean, "Who was the first European to find America?" Or was the question really "Which explorer journeyed to America and opened the way for colonization?" Here is a link to a homeschool lesson that lists several different sites about the discovery of America so that you can research the different claims and decide for yourself:
Reply:Columbus landed on America by accident , he thought he was in India which is why the natives were called indians.
Columbus was a fool and a very ordinary sailor and the only legacy he and his crew bought to the inhabitants was syphillus, ghonnorhea, pox, measles and several other diseases.
Columbus did more harm to the local population by intermingling than if he had shot them (thay did that as well)
The Vikings, The Knights templars and others had been to America long before Columbus.
He did NOT discover America , that is the sanatised white bread version of history , he accidentally landed on the continent and devastated the local population , that is the real version.
He bought nothing of value and took away a lot.
Reply:- The Americas is all of the western hemisphere, so that point is wrong.
- Columbus mostly landed at Hispanola, which is now Dominican Republic and Hait. He touched down at other islands on his other trips.
- He died not long long after his last trip, so he really didn't get into the colonizing end of things.
- Indigenous peoples "discovered" the Americas, not Europeans
Reply:well.. the indians were the first people to come to america, followed by the vikings ( who actually "discovered" america), there is also evidence that the chinese were on the west coast o mexico during the early 1400's. So my answer is no, colombus did not actually discover america, there were many here before he was even born.
metal necklace
What did Senator Bernard Sanders place his hand on when he took his Oath for office?
Knowing he is an atheist I was wondering what he used instead of the bible?
How come Nazi Germany was so strong that it took the USA, Russia, England and others to eventually subdue it?
Italy was just a drag, I'd say they would have been better off without them. Japan was strong but it was on a whole different theatre, although it did consume considerable US military resources.
How come Germany, a country whose population wasn't in the same scale as the US, Russia and England's combined; That was simultaneously busy conducting the largest genocide operation in history; Who gave up on the potential power that Jews and other minority populations could have formed within the army ranks; Who only several years before had suffered dire political and economical crisis - how come this country made such substantial military achievements and nearly subdued the entire allied forces??
How come Nazi Germany was so strong that it took the USA, Russia, England and others to eventually subdue it?
Because they took control of other countries and their resources b4 other countries got involved.
How come Nazi Germany was so strong that it took the USA, Russia, England and others to eventually subdue it?
Fairly simple... The country had been in a recession. Hitler provided jobs to everyone -- making tanks, aircraft, weapons, munitions... They thought it was great, he brought prosperity -- for a time. The entire country became a war machine... much as the U.S. did when we realized we would be in the war eventually... turned car factories into tank and airplane factories... But Hitler had a head start, a country that hadn't stopped producing weapons after WW1 and then increased military production by about 10,000% per year when he was "elected"... Scary to think how many mid-size countries could do virtually the same thing if it wasn't for the nuclear threat today, isn't it?
Reply:The key to Germany's strength was the Ruhr valley.
Also the fact that Germany moved with such speed it was able to overthrow the enemy with tactics such as blitzkrieg. Some countries fell in the space of one or two weeks .
Also Germany came alive under Hitler, like it or not , he galvanized a bitter divided country and gave them a goal and a purpose to rise up after the lose of the first world war.
He built the autobahns and relieved unemployment and inflation that had crippled Germany.
He did come very close to winning the war on 2 occasions. When he sent the British back to england via Dunkirk and at the battle of the Ardene when he launched a counter offensive against the Americans at Bastogne and the Bulge.
The failure of Hitlers army was that they had too many theaters of war and were running out of resources , particulaly oil.
Reply:hi, i think that we should consider the theory which is behind it,the theroies and the ideas are very important before putting our effort in action.the nazies have strong and very positive think which lead them to success.having storng eyesight and positive mental energy mainly cause successfullness.be lucky.
Reply:The 30's was a building period for Nazi Germany. They grew a strong ecomomy, built their army and the Luftwafa, and even tested their might in the Spanish Civil War where their forces killed the Leftist side. So they almost had 10 years to build their strenght while the rest of the world was trying to struggle through the depression and follow the philosophy of ignroance is bliss. Then Chamberlin appeased to the Nazis and let them take Czechoslavakia, so then by the time the war started when Germany invaded Poland, Germany already had a huge landmass and streangth, even though they were persicuting many of their own people. I think though if the Germans had not back-stabbed the Russians in their non-aggression pact, that Germany may have been able to beat England eventually.
But actually, I don't think Germany in reality ever "nearly subdued the entire allied forces." True, before Russia entered the war England was almost defeated in the Battle of Britain, but that was the only time any of the allied forces really came close to defeat. I guess on the Eastern Front things seemed a little dire for a while, but in reality the Germans had no chance against the Russians.
How come though they were able to do this? I would say that the fact that Europe was caught off guard by the Nazis allowed them to make so much advances so quickly, but when the advances stoped it was only a matter of time before the world killed the third richt.
Reply:The leadership of Adolph Hitler.
He could have done far better, especially later in the war, but Hitler brought economic reform to Germany and began rearming her, turning the entir German economy to war production by 1939.. He was helped greatly when the Anschluss occurred and when Sudeten was annexed, providing him with even more industry, which speeded the rearming process.
Now, to be fair, the UK, France, US, and Russia did not prepare for the war as much as Germany did. Their economies weren't as ready as Germany's was, early on. That, combined with great luck in military successes in 1939 and 1940, made Germany into a seemingly unstoppable foe.
They nearly subdued Russia and the UK (not the entire Allied forces, as you say, but that's an entirely different subject) because they prepared.
Reply:Germany was building up it's military might for many years before the outbreak of war, and invaded bordering countries with almost no warning. Russian leader, Stalin, signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, so did not enter the war until Hitler invaded Russia. The United States had an isolationist policy, so also did not enter the war initially, until German U-boats sunk a few US merchant ships. So it was basically left to Britain and Commonwealth countries, with limited military men and materials, to try to stop Hitler until the US and Russia were forced to join as allies, by which time germany had a powerful stranglehold on most of Europe
Reply:The Germans are sneaky, and practice beforehand. Same with the football. It ruins the game.
Reply:the reasons are the sturctural advantages of a strong unitary state in central europe. germany will always have the capability to dominate europe if it so wishes, it has a large population and significant indistrial capacity, as well as geostrategic advantages, allowing easy expansion.
germany was surrounded by quite a few relatively weak states which it could dominate with little effort. she managed to buck the historical trend of nations becoming weaker when they occupy others, allowing germany at the height of its power to become incredibly dangerous.
the reality is though, germany did not really come that close to winning the war. the soviet union was always likely to come out on top in the long run, and as britain was able to remain in the war and effective, the usa could defeat germany. ok so maybe if germany had won the battles of britain and the atlantic, and through whatever means knocked britain out of the war, it is still highly debateable whether they would have been able to defeat the red army in the long term.
Reply:the United States won World War 1 not Europe.
If the US hadnt entered the war when it finally did, france and britian were down to 1 month left. It was that close.
After the war, a lot of countries got rid of their weapons and their huge armies that had fought the war.
The US went back into exilement, geting rid of what it had sent to europe.
Germany in the 30's took the chance to build the most advanced technological army on earth. No other country had the army Germany did at the start of World war 2.
Thats why they were so good. No one was really ready for them.
Reply:The Germans had several advantages at the start of the war...
1) New tactics and an understanding of armored warfare. Where the French and Poles were preparing to refight World War I, Germany prepared to fight a modern war. Armored/infantry tactics today remain very similar to the ones the Germans pioneered in the 1930s.
2) A willingness to invest in the military. Stunned by the horrors of World War I, the British neglected their military in the 1920s and 30s. After World War I, the United States returned to its historic policy of isolationism and also neglected its military. Although the U.S. and Britain had strategists who came to the same conclusion as German strategists, military neglect meant those militaries were not ready at the start of the war, a mistake the two nations came to rue.
3) The German General Staff from inception in Prussia to the start of World War II was the eptimone of military organization. It was simply the best organized army in the world at the start of the war.
4) The German soldier was well trained. This goes back to investment. Hitler was willing to invest in his military and that meant that the German soldier was ready for war.
5) Stalin's purges in the 1930s almost destroyed the Soviet officer corps. Tens of thousands of Soviet military officers disappeared to Siberia when they ran afoul of Stalin or his machine. Stalin did more to lose World War II to the Germans than any German general. Only the vastness of the country, which allowed the bitter Russian winter followed by the wet Russian spring to kick in, saved the Soviet Union. Simpy put, the Germans were not able to move forward fast enough to conquer Russia, which gave the Soviets a chance to rebuild their armies. Still, it took a treaty with Japan, which allowed the Soviets to move their armies off the Manchurian border, to gain the upper hand against Germany.
6) By the time the United States got in the war, the Germans had captured France. Even if the US had been able to quickly raise and train an Army, which we did, the only bases we had were in England, which is separated by the English channel. Before we could force a crossing, new large-scale amphibious tactics had to be developed and an army built up. That took time.
How come Germany, a country whose population wasn't in the same scale as the US, Russia and England's combined; That was simultaneously busy conducting the largest genocide operation in history; Who gave up on the potential power that Jews and other minority populations could have formed within the army ranks; Who only several years before had suffered dire political and economical crisis - how come this country made such substantial military achievements and nearly subdued the entire allied forces??
How come Nazi Germany was so strong that it took the USA, Russia, England and others to eventually subdue it?
Because they took control of other countries and their resources b4 other countries got involved.
How come Nazi Germany was so strong that it took the USA, Russia, England and others to eventually subdue it?
Fairly simple... The country had been in a recession. Hitler provided jobs to everyone -- making tanks, aircraft, weapons, munitions... They thought it was great, he brought prosperity -- for a time. The entire country became a war machine... much as the U.S. did when we realized we would be in the war eventually... turned car factories into tank and airplane factories... But Hitler had a head start, a country that hadn't stopped producing weapons after WW1 and then increased military production by about 10,000% per year when he was "elected"... Scary to think how many mid-size countries could do virtually the same thing if it wasn't for the nuclear threat today, isn't it?
Reply:The key to Germany's strength was the Ruhr valley.
Also the fact that Germany moved with such speed it was able to overthrow the enemy with tactics such as blitzkrieg. Some countries fell in the space of one or two weeks .
Also Germany came alive under Hitler, like it or not , he galvanized a bitter divided country and gave them a goal and a purpose to rise up after the lose of the first world war.
He built the autobahns and relieved unemployment and inflation that had crippled Germany.
He did come very close to winning the war on 2 occasions. When he sent the British back to england via Dunkirk and at the battle of the Ardene when he launched a counter offensive against the Americans at Bastogne and the Bulge.
The failure of Hitlers army was that they had too many theaters of war and were running out of resources , particulaly oil.
Reply:hi, i think that we should consider the theory which is behind it,the theroies and the ideas are very important before putting our effort in action.the nazies have strong and very positive think which lead them to success.having storng eyesight and positive mental energy mainly cause successfullness.be lucky.
Reply:The 30's was a building period for Nazi Germany. They grew a strong ecomomy, built their army and the Luftwafa, and even tested their might in the Spanish Civil War where their forces killed the Leftist side. So they almost had 10 years to build their strenght while the rest of the world was trying to struggle through the depression and follow the philosophy of ignroance is bliss. Then Chamberlin appeased to the Nazis and let them take Czechoslavakia, so then by the time the war started when Germany invaded Poland, Germany already had a huge landmass and streangth, even though they were persicuting many of their own people. I think though if the Germans had not back-stabbed the Russians in their non-aggression pact, that Germany may have been able to beat England eventually.
But actually, I don't think Germany in reality ever "nearly subdued the entire allied forces." True, before Russia entered the war England was almost defeated in the Battle of Britain, but that was the only time any of the allied forces really came close to defeat. I guess on the Eastern Front things seemed a little dire for a while, but in reality the Germans had no chance against the Russians.
How come though they were able to do this? I would say that the fact that Europe was caught off guard by the Nazis allowed them to make so much advances so quickly, but when the advances stoped it was only a matter of time before the world killed the third richt.
Reply:The leadership of Adolph Hitler.
He could have done far better, especially later in the war, but Hitler brought economic reform to Germany and began rearming her, turning the entir German economy to war production by 1939.. He was helped greatly when the Anschluss occurred and when Sudeten was annexed, providing him with even more industry, which speeded the rearming process.
Now, to be fair, the UK, France, US, and Russia did not prepare for the war as much as Germany did. Their economies weren't as ready as Germany's was, early on. That, combined with great luck in military successes in 1939 and 1940, made Germany into a seemingly unstoppable foe.
They nearly subdued Russia and the UK (not the entire Allied forces, as you say, but that's an entirely different subject) because they prepared.
Reply:Germany was building up it's military might for many years before the outbreak of war, and invaded bordering countries with almost no warning. Russian leader, Stalin, signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, so did not enter the war until Hitler invaded Russia. The United States had an isolationist policy, so also did not enter the war initially, until German U-boats sunk a few US merchant ships. So it was basically left to Britain and Commonwealth countries, with limited military men and materials, to try to stop Hitler until the US and Russia were forced to join as allies, by which time germany had a powerful stranglehold on most of Europe
Reply:The Germans are sneaky, and practice beforehand. Same with the football. It ruins the game.
Reply:the reasons are the sturctural advantages of a strong unitary state in central europe. germany will always have the capability to dominate europe if it so wishes, it has a large population and significant indistrial capacity, as well as geostrategic advantages, allowing easy expansion.
germany was surrounded by quite a few relatively weak states which it could dominate with little effort. she managed to buck the historical trend of nations becoming weaker when they occupy others, allowing germany at the height of its power to become incredibly dangerous.
the reality is though, germany did not really come that close to winning the war. the soviet union was always likely to come out on top in the long run, and as britain was able to remain in the war and effective, the usa could defeat germany. ok so maybe if germany had won the battles of britain and the atlantic, and through whatever means knocked britain out of the war, it is still highly debateable whether they would have been able to defeat the red army in the long term.
Reply:the United States won World War 1 not Europe.
If the US hadnt entered the war when it finally did, france and britian were down to 1 month left. It was that close.
After the war, a lot of countries got rid of their weapons and their huge armies that had fought the war.
The US went back into exilement, geting rid of what it had sent to europe.
Germany in the 30's took the chance to build the most advanced technological army on earth. No other country had the army Germany did at the start of World war 2.
Thats why they were so good. No one was really ready for them.
Reply:The Germans had several advantages at the start of the war...
1) New tactics and an understanding of armored warfare. Where the French and Poles were preparing to refight World War I, Germany prepared to fight a modern war. Armored/infantry tactics today remain very similar to the ones the Germans pioneered in the 1930s.
2) A willingness to invest in the military. Stunned by the horrors of World War I, the British neglected their military in the 1920s and 30s. After World War I, the United States returned to its historic policy of isolationism and also neglected its military. Although the U.S. and Britain had strategists who came to the same conclusion as German strategists, military neglect meant those militaries were not ready at the start of the war, a mistake the two nations came to rue.
3) The German General Staff from inception in Prussia to the start of World War II was the eptimone of military organization. It was simply the best organized army in the world at the start of the war.
4) The German soldier was well trained. This goes back to investment. Hitler was willing to invest in his military and that meant that the German soldier was ready for war.
5) Stalin's purges in the 1930s almost destroyed the Soviet officer corps. Tens of thousands of Soviet military officers disappeared to Siberia when they ran afoul of Stalin or his machine. Stalin did more to lose World War II to the Germans than any German general. Only the vastness of the country, which allowed the bitter Russian winter followed by the wet Russian spring to kick in, saved the Soviet Union. Simpy put, the Germans were not able to move forward fast enough to conquer Russia, which gave the Soviets a chance to rebuild their armies. Still, it took a treaty with Japan, which allowed the Soviets to move their armies off the Manchurian border, to gain the upper hand against Germany.
6) By the time the United States got in the war, the Germans had captured France. Even if the US had been able to quickly raise and train an Army, which we did, the only bases we had were in England, which is separated by the English channel. Before we could force a crossing, new large-scale amphibious tactics had to be developed and an army built up. That took time.
Heros and Villains?
My homework task is to think of a famous hero or a famous villain who should I choose?
Heros and Villains?
Hero - Raoul Wallenberg, or Richard Lionheart, or King Henry V of England
Villan - Hitler, Vlad The Impaler, Mary I of England
Heros and Villains?
Hero's, Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, and The Duke of Wellington. Villains, too many to list...
Reply:I did this speech on heros and villians. I chose a villian - George W Bush. I got near full marks. If your american think wisely on who is marking and if they like you to have an opionion.
Reply:The famous hero must be George Washington and the famous villain must be Hitler .
Heros and Villains?
Hero - Raoul Wallenberg, or Richard Lionheart, or King Henry V of England
Villan - Hitler, Vlad The Impaler, Mary I of England
Heros and Villains?
Hero's, Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, and The Duke of Wellington. Villains, too many to list...
Reply:I did this speech on heros and villians. I chose a villian - George W Bush. I got near full marks. If your american think wisely on who is marking and if they like you to have an opionion.
Reply:The famous hero must be George Washington and the famous villain must be Hitler .
What defences were used during the attack on Pearl Harbour?
defence of both Japan and America:
What defences were used during the attack on Pearl Harbour?
Japan was attacking, they weren't defending.
The US tried to fight back, mostly by firing on the Japanese planes with machine guns; but it wasn't enough.
The US DID eventually send up some planes to attack - but most of them were shot down.
Actually, the best thing the US did wasn't a defense move, it just worked out that way - The US Air craft Carriers weren't in port on the day of the attack. They were the main target that the Japanese had come to attack.
The US anti-submarine measures seem to have been effective - not one of the Japanese mini subs returned from the attack.
What defences were used during the attack on Pearl Harbour?
United States military and political leaders did not believe the Japanese were racially capable of mounting an attack on Pearl Harbor. The British and Germans, maybe, but not the brown-skinned Japanese. That is why the fleet was withdrawn to Pearl Harbor, so it could be held in reserve when the Japanese made their expected attack on other American possessions in Asia, such as the Philippines.
As a result of our racism, we were caught with our pants down. We had, for instance, working radar in Hawaii at the time of the attack. However, because the Japanese could never mount an attack on Pearl Harbor, the incoming Japanese bomber force was mistaken as a small flight of B-17s from California. The harbor was outfitted with torpedeo nets which would have made it much harder for Japanese torpedos to damage anchored ships. However, the torpedeo nets impeded ships in the harbor and so were ordered removed shortly before the Japanese attack.
The ships in the fleet had their own organic anti-aircraft defenses. But, the fleet was at anchor in Pearl Harbor and it was a Sunday, meaning many sailors were off their ships. As a result, it took some time for sailors to man the guns and return fire.
The greatest danger imagined by American military leaders in Pearl Harbor was sabatoge. So to make their planes easier to guard, American commanders grouped them tightly together in nice rows that made it easy for Japanese pilots to bomb and stafe them. Still, a few pilots managed to get in the air and one or two shot down a Japanese aircraft.
For the Japanese, they used two main security measures. First, they sailed by the northern route, which has very choppy seas and is lightly travelled. They also maintained strict radio silence.
flower arrangements
What defences were used during the attack on Pearl Harbour?
Japan was attacking, they weren't defending.
The US tried to fight back, mostly by firing on the Japanese planes with machine guns; but it wasn't enough.
The US DID eventually send up some planes to attack - but most of them were shot down.
Actually, the best thing the US did wasn't a defense move, it just worked out that way - The US Air craft Carriers weren't in port on the day of the attack. They were the main target that the Japanese had come to attack.
The US anti-submarine measures seem to have been effective - not one of the Japanese mini subs returned from the attack.
What defences were used during the attack on Pearl Harbour?
United States military and political leaders did not believe the Japanese were racially capable of mounting an attack on Pearl Harbor. The British and Germans, maybe, but not the brown-skinned Japanese. That is why the fleet was withdrawn to Pearl Harbor, so it could be held in reserve when the Japanese made their expected attack on other American possessions in Asia, such as the Philippines.
As a result of our racism, we were caught with our pants down. We had, for instance, working radar in Hawaii at the time of the attack. However, because the Japanese could never mount an attack on Pearl Harbor, the incoming Japanese bomber force was mistaken as a small flight of B-17s from California. The harbor was outfitted with torpedeo nets which would have made it much harder for Japanese torpedos to damage anchored ships. However, the torpedeo nets impeded ships in the harbor and so were ordered removed shortly before the Japanese attack.
The ships in the fleet had their own organic anti-aircraft defenses. But, the fleet was at anchor in Pearl Harbor and it was a Sunday, meaning many sailors were off their ships. As a result, it took some time for sailors to man the guns and return fire.
The greatest danger imagined by American military leaders in Pearl Harbor was sabatoge. So to make their planes easier to guard, American commanders grouped them tightly together in nice rows that made it easy for Japanese pilots to bomb and stafe them. Still, a few pilots managed to get in the air and one or two shot down a Japanese aircraft.
For the Japanese, they used two main security measures. First, they sailed by the northern route, which has very choppy seas and is lightly travelled. They also maintained strict radio silence.
flower arrangements
What is the history of gypsy music?
what is the history of gypsy music why they went to india and all other countries.
Is it true that the Mayans are very obsess in the space and universe?
I have read a novel about the mayan culture and I am very intrigue about that.
Is it true that the Mayans are very obsess in the space and universe?
yup
Is it true that the Mayans are very obsess in the space and universe?
yup
What are some intresting facts on george washington?
he was the 1st pres, and he is on the dollar bill.... lol
What are some intresting facts on george washington?
There is a town in the State of Washington named George. Really. Hence, George, Washington. It is located west of Moses Lake and east of the Columbia River.
What are some intresting facts on george washington?
he was named after a City
Reply:George Washington is known as the father of our country, but he never fathered a child. His only children were his step-children. His wife, Martha, was a wealthy widow when he married her.
Washington's first military experience was in the British Army, he served during the French Indian War.
George Washington owned slaves, but he set them free in his will.
That's 3 interesting facts.
Reply:George Washington (February 22, 1732[1][2][3] 鈥?December 14, 1799) was the first President of the United States, (1789鈥?797),[4] and led the Continental Army to victory over the Kingdom of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775鈥?783).
Washington was chosen to be the commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775. The following year, he forced the British out of Boston, lost New York City, and crossed the Delaware River in New Jersey and defeated the surprised enemy units later that year. As a result of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured the two main British combat armies鈥擲aratoga and Yorktown. Negotiating with Congress, the colonial states, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and failure. Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon.
Unsatisfied with the Articles of Confederation, he presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 and established many of the customs and usages of the new government's executive department. He sought to create a great nation capable of surviving in a world torn asunder by war between Britain and France. His unilateral Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793 provided a basis for avoiding any involvement in foreign conflicts. He supported plans to build a strong central government by funding the national debt, implementing an effective tax system, and creating a national bank. Washington avoided the temptation of war and began a decade of peace with Britain via the Jay Treaty in 1795; he used his prestige to get it ratified over intense opposition from the Jeffersonians. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs and was its inspirational leader. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against involvement in foreign wars.
Washington is seen as a symbol of the United States and republicanism in practice.[5] His devotion to civic virtue made him an exemplary figure among early American politicians.[5][6] Washington died in 1799, and in his funeral oration, Henry Lee said that of all Americans, he was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Washington has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.
art
What are some intresting facts on george washington?
There is a town in the State of Washington named George. Really. Hence, George, Washington. It is located west of Moses Lake and east of the Columbia River.
What are some intresting facts on george washington?
he was named after a City
Reply:George Washington is known as the father of our country, but he never fathered a child. His only children were his step-children. His wife, Martha, was a wealthy widow when he married her.
Washington's first military experience was in the British Army, he served during the French Indian War.
George Washington owned slaves, but he set them free in his will.
That's 3 interesting facts.
Reply:George Washington (February 22, 1732[1][2][3] 鈥?December 14, 1799) was the first President of the United States, (1789鈥?797),[4] and led the Continental Army to victory over the Kingdom of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775鈥?783).
Washington was chosen to be the commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775. The following year, he forced the British out of Boston, lost New York City, and crossed the Delaware River in New Jersey and defeated the surprised enemy units later that year. As a result of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured the two main British combat armies鈥擲aratoga and Yorktown. Negotiating with Congress, the colonial states, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and failure. Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon.
Unsatisfied with the Articles of Confederation, he presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 and established many of the customs and usages of the new government's executive department. He sought to create a great nation capable of surviving in a world torn asunder by war between Britain and France. His unilateral Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793 provided a basis for avoiding any involvement in foreign conflicts. He supported plans to build a strong central government by funding the national debt, implementing an effective tax system, and creating a national bank. Washington avoided the temptation of war and began a decade of peace with Britain via the Jay Treaty in 1795; he used his prestige to get it ratified over intense opposition from the Jeffersonians. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs and was its inspirational leader. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against involvement in foreign wars.
Washington is seen as a symbol of the United States and republicanism in practice.[5] His devotion to civic virtue made him an exemplary figure among early American politicians.[5][6] Washington died in 1799, and in his funeral oration, Henry Lee said that of all Americans, he was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Washington has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.
art
What made george washington a hero?
the fact that he was the main general of the army that beat the british in the revolutionary war, which made United States a free country
What made george washington a hero?
he was no hero,he and his followers were nothing but bloody traitors.
What made george washington a hero?
In the United States, he is remembered for leading the Revolutionary Army in their glorious victory over the British in our War of Independence.
What makes him a hero is that immediately after the war, crowds sought to make him king of the United States. He refused and returned home to Virginia to live as a simple citizen. He had a second chance to become king after serving as President for two terms. For a second time he provided the example, peacefully leaving office in favor of John Adams.
If it was not for George Washington, the United States could have easily turned to military dictatorship or monarchy in the turbulent years after the Revolutionary War. As Henry "Lighthorse" Lee said on Washington's death, "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting鈥orrect throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues鈥uch was the man for whom our nation mourns."
Reply:I think a lot of times people get the wrong reasons why George Washington was so great. Yes, he was a great reason, but not because he was especially smart or a perfect model of the presidency.
George Washington never got more than an elementary education. And his early career was pretty awkward. He served the British Army in fighting against the French. That actually started the French-Indian wars. Not so heroic.
A British Army that he was advising (though he was giving the right advice, just no one was listening) sent to capture fort Duquesne was pretty much obliterated. Not so heroic either.
And then he led the Continental Army against the British during the revolution. Pretty much every major battle he fought but two was a miserable defeat.
Ever heard of Thaddeus Kosciuszko? Probably not, he was a polish General that actually did more for the revolution than George Washington did.
As a President, he stayed out of war, but his Cabinet members Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton became bitter rivals and created a two party system that Washington was very apposed to. Failure.
So what made him a hero?
Well during the revolution, those in the Continental army were mostly completely uneducated illiterate farmers. They really had no reason to leave their land that gave them money and go out to fight the most powerful army in the world. Basically the rich founding fathers were promising them land. They were untrained and sometimes very hard to deal with. Desertion was a huge issue. Somehow Washington kept them together and fighting. Thats what made him a hero. Nearly all historians agree that that was what he could do. He could keep people together and at it. Somehow he kept Jefferson and Hamilton together even though they hated each other long enough for both to contribute to the Country we know today.
Edit:
I have to disagree with Veto R. The victory over the British was anything but glorious. Read up on it and you'll find out. It was pretty miserable.
What made george washington a hero?
he was no hero,he and his followers were nothing but bloody traitors.
What made george washington a hero?
In the United States, he is remembered for leading the Revolutionary Army in their glorious victory over the British in our War of Independence.
What makes him a hero is that immediately after the war, crowds sought to make him king of the United States. He refused and returned home to Virginia to live as a simple citizen. He had a second chance to become king after serving as President for two terms. For a second time he provided the example, peacefully leaving office in favor of John Adams.
If it was not for George Washington, the United States could have easily turned to military dictatorship or monarchy in the turbulent years after the Revolutionary War. As Henry "Lighthorse" Lee said on Washington's death, "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting鈥orrect throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues鈥uch was the man for whom our nation mourns."
Reply:I think a lot of times people get the wrong reasons why George Washington was so great. Yes, he was a great reason, but not because he was especially smart or a perfect model of the presidency.
George Washington never got more than an elementary education. And his early career was pretty awkward. He served the British Army in fighting against the French. That actually started the French-Indian wars. Not so heroic.
A British Army that he was advising (though he was giving the right advice, just no one was listening) sent to capture fort Duquesne was pretty much obliterated. Not so heroic either.
And then he led the Continental Army against the British during the revolution. Pretty much every major battle he fought but two was a miserable defeat.
Ever heard of Thaddeus Kosciuszko? Probably not, he was a polish General that actually did more for the revolution than George Washington did.
As a President, he stayed out of war, but his Cabinet members Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton became bitter rivals and created a two party system that Washington was very apposed to. Failure.
So what made him a hero?
Well during the revolution, those in the Continental army were mostly completely uneducated illiterate farmers. They really had no reason to leave their land that gave them money and go out to fight the most powerful army in the world. Basically the rich founding fathers were promising them land. They were untrained and sometimes very hard to deal with. Desertion was a huge issue. Somehow Washington kept them together and fighting. Thats what made him a hero. Nearly all historians agree that that was what he could do. He could keep people together and at it. Somehow he kept Jefferson and Hamilton together even though they hated each other long enough for both to contribute to the Country we know today.
Edit:
I have to disagree with Veto R. The victory over the British was anything but glorious. Read up on it and you'll find out. It was pretty miserable.
What is the difference between a peplos and a chiton in Ancient Greece?
Please provide diagrams
What is the difference between a peplos and a chiton in Ancient Greece?
I don't even know who or what your talking about
but you should listen to umbrella from all time low, it's a good remake
What is the difference between a peplos and a chiton in Ancient Greece?
I am not a fashion freak, but my information is that a chiton is a tunic - a man's sleeveless shirt hanging loosely from the shoulders to about knee-level and often belted around the waist. It looked similar to the long shirts or tunics worn to this day in India and Pakistan, whose Indian name I'm afraid I don't know.
A peplos is a feminine garment - a top hanging in folds or pleats to, I believe, about waist level.
Perhaps some fashionistas could give better descriptions.
What is the difference between a peplos and a chiton in Ancient Greece?
I don't even know who or what your talking about
but you should listen to umbrella from all time low, it's a good remake
What is the difference between a peplos and a chiton in Ancient Greece?
I am not a fashion freak, but my information is that a chiton is a tunic - a man's sleeveless shirt hanging loosely from the shoulders to about knee-level and often belted around the waist. It looked similar to the long shirts or tunics worn to this day in India and Pakistan, whose Indian name I'm afraid I don't know.
A peplos is a feminine garment - a top hanging in folds or pleats to, I believe, about waist level.
Perhaps some fashionistas could give better descriptions.
What would President Harrison's Sword be worth?
My very humble best friend of 14 years told me tonight that his great great grandfather (direct liturgy) is Benjamin Harrison. I am in awe that this has never been brought up before! Let's say that he is telling the truth. He has several ceremonial swords in his possession used by the late president himself...what would be the value of such a historical artifact?
What would President Harrison's Sword be worth?
It is worth whatever you can get someone to pay you for it. I could say "It's worth a million dollars" and that would thrill you and your buddy, but if you can't actually get someone to give you a million dollars for it, guess what? It's not worth a million dollars.
I would check to see if there is a "Harrison Presidential Museum" and approach them for a "competitive" bid. If no such museum exists I would find out where the beloved ex-pres went to college and approach the school to gauge their interest. Finally, the statehouse of his home state. Once any of these specific special interest entities had their say I would ask for a cold, hard offer in writing. With this in hand I would put it on e-bay with the museum/school/statehouse bid as the opening offer. If no one heavily out bid the special interest "Harrison-ites" I would give them last shot at it on e-bay.
Whatever you do, don't lead your friend down the primrose path of 6 or 7 digit values without having a credible buyer (one with verifiable, liquid funds in the bank) with a specific offer on the table. If he is erroneously led to believe he can get $100,000 and then only gets $10,000 he will be unhappy. On the other side of the coin, if you lower his expectations and say "we might get $7,500" and then you get 10k... he'll be happy. He'll perceive the ten thousand in a completely different and happier light, and even though it's the same dollar amount, he will not have had false expectations and then ended up disappointed. One other suggestion: No checks!
Happy hunting and enjoy the historic significance of your heirloom. Good Luck!
What would President Harrison's Sword be worth?
It is worth whatever you can get someone to pay you for it. I could say "It's worth a million dollars" and that would thrill you and your buddy, but if you can't actually get someone to give you a million dollars for it, guess what? It's not worth a million dollars.
I would check to see if there is a "Harrison Presidential Museum" and approach them for a "competitive" bid. If no such museum exists I would find out where the beloved ex-pres went to college and approach the school to gauge their interest. Finally, the statehouse of his home state. Once any of these specific special interest entities had their say I would ask for a cold, hard offer in writing. With this in hand I would put it on e-bay with the museum/school/statehouse bid as the opening offer. If no one heavily out bid the special interest "Harrison-ites" I would give them last shot at it on e-bay.
Whatever you do, don't lead your friend down the primrose path of 6 or 7 digit values without having a credible buyer (one with verifiable, liquid funds in the bank) with a specific offer on the table. If he is erroneously led to believe he can get $100,000 and then only gets $10,000 he will be unhappy. On the other side of the coin, if you lower his expectations and say "we might get $7,500" and then you get 10k... he'll be happy. He'll perceive the ten thousand in a completely different and happier light, and even though it's the same dollar amount, he will not have had false expectations and then ended up disappointed. One other suggestion: No checks!
Happy hunting and enjoy the historic significance of your heirloom. Good Luck!
What do you know about the end of the Mayan calender?
will it be another y2k thing
What do you know about the end of the Mayan calender?
google the date. Dec 21, 2012. You will be reading things for a long time, probably won't be finished before 2012.
What do you know about the end of the Mayan calender?
The classical Mayan "long count" calendar has no ending, but continues in cycles for longer than the universe is likely to last. It was just one of several different but overlapping systems the Mayas used to record the passage of time - the baktun (of 144,000 kin or days) was the largest theoretical unit in the long count system, but this could continue to be increased by factors of 20 to give cycles of hundreds of millions of days.
Imagine all the Mayan calendrical systems fitting together like cogs in a machine, constantly revolving and continuing in endless cycles - this is in direct contrast with our own system, which operates as a continuous flat timeline.
The end of one cycle and the start of another have already taken place several times in Mayan history, without the world coming to an end. Don't believe everything you read - 90% is garbage of the worst kind.
Reply:Thanks to Brother for his answer. I Have to say, that my daughter had a teacher in her school declare that 2012 would be the end of the world! Being a little worry wort, she obsessed briefly about this upcoming event. We finally asked her if she was to rely on a calender of a people who have been gone for as long as they have been? But your answer was way better, and I can't wait for her to read it. People have been predicting the worlds end since day one, basically, and it could be in our lifetime, or our grandchildren, no one knows but the man upstairs.
Reply:The ancient Maya were master astronomers, mathematicians as well as master time keepers. Those things which they predicted and their time has come to pass (eclipses etc.) have been surprisingly right on. As for their 2012 predictions, we'll just all have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, It doesn't hurt to have a peek at the Mayan Calendars and their prophecies and maybe even watch them unfold.
A good place to start would be their "Calendar Round" (Their Personal Calendar). We could then look at their "Galactic Day" and then their "Long Count" calendar; it's the one most of us are familiar with, that stone circle, with a face at its center (The Mayan Sunstone): Both calendar cycles are set to end and begin a new cycle on December 21, 2012. They also have a calendar that charts all of "creation" from the Big Bang to the year 2012. The Maya claim, that we will have reached our spiritual destination on December 21, 2012. The world "as we have know it" will cease to exist beyond this point (according to them).
The following video shows the mechanics of the Calendar Round. Each symbol (Sun Sign) on the calendar, represents an energy with special characteristics. With an understanding of the cycles and the symbols you'll be well on your way to charting the energies associated with each day. You will even be able to go back to your own birthday and see what energies were around when you were born. That will tell you who you are at the spiritual level since It's when your spiritual energy chose to reincarnate into your present body. That's the spiritual energy that guides you through life. Does your Mayan Sun Sign match your inner self?
Mayan Calendar Round (Personal calendar)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeE-3BBqG...
What's your Mayan Sun Sign?
http://www.mayanmajix.com/TZOLKIN/index....
If you want to look at what some of the other signs are, here is a link that lists them:
http://mayandaysigns.blogspot.com/
The following cycles are most relevant to what may occur in 2012. There is the 25,625 year "Galactic Day" and the 5,125 year "Long Count"(Great Cycle). Both of these are set to end and restart on the Winter Solstice of 2012 (11:00 UST Dec. 21, 2012): That is unless the 2012 Mayan Prophecy comes true (I'll get back to that later).
Let's continue with the "Galactic Day". As we travel around the Milky Way galaxy, it is my understanding that we do not remain at a constant distance nor at the same orientation in relation to the black hole at its center; a black hole the Maya refer to as the supreme creator, "HUNAB KU". Instead, we move in and away from this black hole. As we move in we simultaneously align to the Milky Way's equator or "The Tree of Life" as the Maya call it. In the years that we are furthest away, we become dense low vibrating energy and experience our dark spiritual years: These years are part of the "Galactic Night". In the years that we move closer, we become higher vibrating energy and spiritually enlightened beings: These years pertain to the "Galactic Day". We are currently in transition from Night to Day. The complete cycle takes 25,625 years; approximately the same as what modern science has calculated and named "The Precession Of The Equinox Cycle".
Mayan Prophecy 2012: Entering Our Galactic Day
http://www.december212012.com/articles/m...
The Precession Of The Equinox Explanation (Great Cycle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLO4f2lD...
The "Long Count" evenly divides the "Galactic Day" into five equal parts (25,625 years / 5 = 5,125 years). It is my understanding that this cycle also coincides with a natural rhythmic beat that is derived from the black hole at the center of the galaxy in the form of an energy pulse. This energy pulse presumably has multiple effects on us and our surroundings. It not only helps us to become enlightened beings for twenty years, but reeks havoc on Earth by creating larger solar flares which can bring famine, increased earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tsunamis, and sometimes even a pole shift. Twenty years prior to this event, in a period the Maya refer to as "The Time of No-Time", mild energy spurts, from "HUNAB KU", create a shift in consciousness; from left-brain thinking to right-brain thinking (from logical to intuitive). This shift can be experienced all at once or gradually at first moving exponentially as we approach the end of the cycle.
Mayan Long Count
http://www.hanksville.org/yucatan/longco...
Long Count Calendar (The Aztec Calendar Stone / Mayan Sunstone)
http://www.geocities.com/wwwtimto/gfx/su...
There is one last Mayan calendar I could share with you called "The Nine Underworlds". It is one of the more recently rediscovered calendars and may be the most important one. It is a calendar that has recorded the state of consciousness from the beginning of time (The Big Bang) to Dec. 21, 2012; At which time we will have supposedly consciously evolved to completeness to become co-creators with "HUNAB-KU": It maps out "creation" if you will. No one is sure of what to expect since it is the first time anyone will have experienced this since the beginning of time. It is much too involved for me to get into, but I found a video that covers it pretty well; albeit kind of long.
Secrets of the Mayan Calendar Unveiled (parts 1 - 3)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
The Nine Underworlds of Creation
http://www.mayanmajix.com/lab_F1.html
What do you know about the end of the Mayan calender?
google the date. Dec 21, 2012. You will be reading things for a long time, probably won't be finished before 2012.
What do you know about the end of the Mayan calender?
The classical Mayan "long count" calendar has no ending, but continues in cycles for longer than the universe is likely to last. It was just one of several different but overlapping systems the Mayas used to record the passage of time - the baktun (of 144,000 kin or days) was the largest theoretical unit in the long count system, but this could continue to be increased by factors of 20 to give cycles of hundreds of millions of days.
Imagine all the Mayan calendrical systems fitting together like cogs in a machine, constantly revolving and continuing in endless cycles - this is in direct contrast with our own system, which operates as a continuous flat timeline.
The end of one cycle and the start of another have already taken place several times in Mayan history, without the world coming to an end. Don't believe everything you read - 90% is garbage of the worst kind.
Reply:Thanks to Brother for his answer. I Have to say, that my daughter had a teacher in her school declare that 2012 would be the end of the world! Being a little worry wort, she obsessed briefly about this upcoming event. We finally asked her if she was to rely on a calender of a people who have been gone for as long as they have been? But your answer was way better, and I can't wait for her to read it. People have been predicting the worlds end since day one, basically, and it could be in our lifetime, or our grandchildren, no one knows but the man upstairs.
Reply:The ancient Maya were master astronomers, mathematicians as well as master time keepers. Those things which they predicted and their time has come to pass (eclipses etc.) have been surprisingly right on. As for their 2012 predictions, we'll just all have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, It doesn't hurt to have a peek at the Mayan Calendars and their prophecies and maybe even watch them unfold.
A good place to start would be their "Calendar Round" (Their Personal Calendar). We could then look at their "Galactic Day" and then their "Long Count" calendar; it's the one most of us are familiar with, that stone circle, with a face at its center (The Mayan Sunstone): Both calendar cycles are set to end and begin a new cycle on December 21, 2012. They also have a calendar that charts all of "creation" from the Big Bang to the year 2012. The Maya claim, that we will have reached our spiritual destination on December 21, 2012. The world "as we have know it" will cease to exist beyond this point (according to them).
The following video shows the mechanics of the Calendar Round. Each symbol (Sun Sign) on the calendar, represents an energy with special characteristics. With an understanding of the cycles and the symbols you'll be well on your way to charting the energies associated with each day. You will even be able to go back to your own birthday and see what energies were around when you were born. That will tell you who you are at the spiritual level since It's when your spiritual energy chose to reincarnate into your present body. That's the spiritual energy that guides you through life. Does your Mayan Sun Sign match your inner self?
Mayan Calendar Round (Personal calendar)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeE-3BBqG...
What's your Mayan Sun Sign?
http://www.mayanmajix.com/TZOLKIN/index....
If you want to look at what some of the other signs are, here is a link that lists them:
http://mayandaysigns.blogspot.com/
The following cycles are most relevant to what may occur in 2012. There is the 25,625 year "Galactic Day" and the 5,125 year "Long Count"(Great Cycle). Both of these are set to end and restart on the Winter Solstice of 2012 (11:00 UST Dec. 21, 2012): That is unless the 2012 Mayan Prophecy comes true (I'll get back to that later).
Let's continue with the "Galactic Day". As we travel around the Milky Way galaxy, it is my understanding that we do not remain at a constant distance nor at the same orientation in relation to the black hole at its center; a black hole the Maya refer to as the supreme creator, "HUNAB KU". Instead, we move in and away from this black hole. As we move in we simultaneously align to the Milky Way's equator or "The Tree of Life" as the Maya call it. In the years that we are furthest away, we become dense low vibrating energy and experience our dark spiritual years: These years are part of the "Galactic Night". In the years that we move closer, we become higher vibrating energy and spiritually enlightened beings: These years pertain to the "Galactic Day". We are currently in transition from Night to Day. The complete cycle takes 25,625 years; approximately the same as what modern science has calculated and named "The Precession Of The Equinox Cycle".
Mayan Prophecy 2012: Entering Our Galactic Day
http://www.december212012.com/articles/m...
The Precession Of The Equinox Explanation (Great Cycle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLO4f2lD...
The "Long Count" evenly divides the "Galactic Day" into five equal parts (25,625 years / 5 = 5,125 years). It is my understanding that this cycle also coincides with a natural rhythmic beat that is derived from the black hole at the center of the galaxy in the form of an energy pulse. This energy pulse presumably has multiple effects on us and our surroundings. It not only helps us to become enlightened beings for twenty years, but reeks havoc on Earth by creating larger solar flares which can bring famine, increased earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tsunamis, and sometimes even a pole shift. Twenty years prior to this event, in a period the Maya refer to as "The Time of No-Time", mild energy spurts, from "HUNAB KU", create a shift in consciousness; from left-brain thinking to right-brain thinking (from logical to intuitive). This shift can be experienced all at once or gradually at first moving exponentially as we approach the end of the cycle.
Mayan Long Count
http://www.hanksville.org/yucatan/longco...
Long Count Calendar (The Aztec Calendar Stone / Mayan Sunstone)
http://www.geocities.com/wwwtimto/gfx/su...
There is one last Mayan calendar I could share with you called "The Nine Underworlds". It is one of the more recently rediscovered calendars and may be the most important one. It is a calendar that has recorded the state of consciousness from the beginning of time (The Big Bang) to Dec. 21, 2012; At which time we will have supposedly consciously evolved to completeness to become co-creators with "HUNAB-KU": It maps out "creation" if you will. No one is sure of what to expect since it is the first time anyone will have experienced this since the beginning of time. It is much too involved for me to get into, but I found a video that covers it pretty well; albeit kind of long.
Secrets of the Mayan Calendar Unveiled (parts 1 - 3)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
The Nine Underworlds of Creation
http://www.mayanmajix.com/lab_F1.html
Who Are The Some Of The Most Renowned Indologists?
Max Muller, Sir William Jones (Founder of Asiatic Society, Kolkata), Rahul Sankrityayan, Dayanand Dharmananda Kosambi, Swami Agehananda Bharati - an Austrian by birth who taught Indology at Syracuse Univ. (USA).
Amongst the living there are many of all grades and shades in India. Particularly look for them in Varanasi and its university and other schools of oriental (Indology) learning in universities at Pune, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata.
Amongst the living there are many of all grades and shades in India. Particularly look for them in Varanasi and its university and other schools of oriental (Indology) learning in universities at Pune, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata.
Have you ever thought that way?
I was reading a poem by Robert Frost called The Road Not Taken, and I began wondering about why do we have to read, study and spend time reading others discoveries and how they view the world instead of building our own discoveries from our perspectives, that way we could lead instead of follow? I am just wondering about how did education really start, there were no books or assigned reading to discover something. The first human beings to start this basically thought out everything without books or school.
I am not taking these facts at face value and sometimes I feel like I am taking there information and they are implementing there ideas on me while I have to disregard mines or in other words I feel "brainwashed" just reading their ideas? It is getting to my head and hurting my motivation studying. I would also like to know how did the people who started science and education come to their conclusion when there was no books back then?
Thank you in advance!
History
I am not taking these facts at face value and sometimes I feel like I am taking there information and they are implementing there ideas on me while I have to disregard mines or in other words I feel "brainwashed" just reading their ideas? It is getting to my head and hurting my motivation studying. I would also like to know how did the people who started science and education come to their conclusion when there was no books back then?
Thank you in advance!
History
Ancient Numbers?
Im looking for Ancient Macedonian numbers, or any ancient numbers from anywhere around the world look like, are there any websites out there that may hold this information?
Ancient Numbers?
The ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of ancient Greek. Ancient Greek had no cyphers (characters 0-9) as we have today. Instead, the alphabet itself was made to serve a dual purpose. Thus a given character had its corresponding number. For example, the Alpha character also stood for the number 1.
SEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mac...
ALSO:
http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/numcod...
Ancient Numbers?
Hope these help....
Reply:http://www.geocities.com/mathfair2002/sc...
Ancient Numbers?
The ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of ancient Greek. Ancient Greek had no cyphers (characters 0-9) as we have today. Instead, the alphabet itself was made to serve a dual purpose. Thus a given character had its corresponding number. For example, the Alpha character also stood for the number 1.
SEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mac...
ALSO:
http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/numcod...
Ancient Numbers?
Hope these help....
Reply:http://www.geocities.com/mathfair2002/sc...
Louis Lambert?
Does anyone have any information about him when he wrote "When Johnny Come Marching Home" and/or pictures? It's for a project... Thanks =)
Louis Lambert?
from what I found on wikipedia circa 1863 the song was written, look it up under the song title, thats how I found it but heres tyhe site anyway. There is one picture but you might like to print the sheet music up that is under the links on the bottom of the page.
Louis Lambert?
from what I found on wikipedia circa 1863 the song was written, look it up under the song title, thats how I found it but heres tyhe site anyway. There is one picture but you might like to print the sheet music up that is under the links on the bottom of the page.
How did WWII influence TV and movies (esp. in 40's)?
There was no TV.
Movies were all rah, rah Patriotic babble.
For a good movie that was probably the first to show the true face of WWII - even though no part of the War was actually shown - "The Best Years of Our Lives." 1946 - 10-11 Oscars.
How did WWII influence TV and movies (esp. in 40's)?
the second world war was the first conflict to make use of colored film in the u.s., and was often used to film combat footage. Also cameras were somewhat successfully waterproofed, so cameramen could die on the beaches with foot soldiers during invasions. Newsreels were played before and after movies to let the public get a sense of what hell was.
Movies were all rah, rah Patriotic babble.
For a good movie that was probably the first to show the true face of WWII - even though no part of the War was actually shown - "The Best Years of Our Lives." 1946 - 10-11 Oscars.
How did WWII influence TV and movies (esp. in 40's)?
the second world war was the first conflict to make use of colored film in the u.s., and was often used to film combat footage. Also cameras were somewhat successfully waterproofed, so cameramen could die on the beaches with foot soldiers during invasions. Newsreels were played before and after movies to let the public get a sense of what hell was.
Who was the first person executed on the Guillotine?
Grim history is fascinating. Who was the first person executed on the guillotine?
Who was the first person executed on the Guillotine?
The guillotine is a machine used for decapitation. ... On April 25, 1792 highwayman Nicolas J. Pelletier became the first person executed by guillotine.
It takes its name from Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a French doctor, on whose suggestion it was introduced.
Who was the first person executed on the Guillotine?
The guillotine is a machine used for decapitation. ... On April 25, 1792 highwayman Nicolas J. Pelletier became the first person executed by guillotine.
It takes its name from Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a French doctor, on whose suggestion it was introduced.
US History practice essay question?
Actions taken by the United States government have often been influenced by
geographic factors. Some of these factors include location, climate, natural
resources, and physical features.
Task:
Identify two actions taken by the United States government that have been
influenced by geographic factors and for each
鈥?State one reason the United States took the action
鈥?Describe how a geographic factor influenced the action
鈥?Discuss the impact of the action on the United States
You may use any action taken by the United States government that was influenced by a
geographic factor. Some suggestions you might wish to consider include the Lewis and Clark
expedition (1804鈥?806), issuance of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), Mexican War (1846鈥?848),
Commodore Perry鈥檚 opening of Japan (1853), passage of the Homestead Act (1862), purchase
of Alaska (1867), construction of the Panama Canal (1904鈥?914), entry into World War II
(1941), passage of the Interstate Highway Act (1956), and involvement in Persi
US History practice essay question?
Why don't you provide us with what you have so far and we'll be happy to give you a few pointers to, maybe, improve upon it.
flowers anniversary
geographic factors. Some of these factors include location, climate, natural
resources, and physical features.
Task:
Identify two actions taken by the United States government that have been
influenced by geographic factors and for each
鈥?State one reason the United States took the action
鈥?Describe how a geographic factor influenced the action
鈥?Discuss the impact of the action on the United States
You may use any action taken by the United States government that was influenced by a
geographic factor. Some suggestions you might wish to consider include the Lewis and Clark
expedition (1804鈥?806), issuance of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), Mexican War (1846鈥?848),
Commodore Perry鈥檚 opening of Japan (1853), passage of the Homestead Act (1862), purchase
of Alaska (1867), construction of the Panama Canal (1904鈥?914), entry into World War II
(1941), passage of the Interstate Highway Act (1956), and involvement in Persi
US History practice essay question?
Why don't you provide us with what you have so far and we'll be happy to give you a few pointers to, maybe, improve upon it.
flowers anniversary
What condition is necessary in establishing a democratic nation?
You really need a few.
You need an educated and informed electorate-people need to be able to make decisions based on reliable and timely information. They need to be aware of the issues.
You need a little alturism in the electorate as well-people need to accept some unpleasantness for the common good, be prepared to make some individual sacrifices for the good of the whole community.
The electorate needs to be interested and participate in the political process. If they aren't looking out for themselves or are apathetic, they'll get walked all over.
IMHO the last true democracies were the anarcho-syndicalist collectives in Catalonia and Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War.
You need an educated and informed electorate-people need to be able to make decisions based on reliable and timely information. They need to be aware of the issues.
You need a little alturism in the electorate as well-people need to accept some unpleasantness for the common good, be prepared to make some individual sacrifices for the good of the whole community.
The electorate needs to be interested and participate in the political process. If they aren't looking out for themselves or are apathetic, they'll get walked all over.
IMHO the last true democracies were the anarcho-syndicalist collectives in Catalonia and Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War.
Middle ages!!!?
Dark ages, age of faith, age of feudalism, or a golden age??
this is a final exam question and i cant think of anything..can you help me out?
Middle ages!!!?
feudilism maybe
Middle ages!!!?
it was the Dark Age. A time when barbarians conquered.
it does depend on the time period in the Middle Ages
Reply:Dark ages
Reply:That's a very broad topic. My guess is that your teacher wants you to discuss each of the four topics (dark ages, faith age, feudalism, golden age). Then compare and contrast and finally, select which of these four best describes the middle ages, in your opinion. FYI... there is no wrong answer.
Reply:The Dark Ages an age of faith, feudalism and the start of a golden age. This era in history was a dark and difficult time for any person because the order that the Roman Empire seech to be and was under the rule of barbarians. As the barbarians took over they kept most of what people had intact but led to a time of dispear. To this the age of faith was upon many in Europe as the Holy Roman Church became the savior that saved Europe during this time of darkness. They led in converting people to become faithful catholics who followed the commandments and all the nine yards. It is from them that writing was reestablished by 1000 A. D . for they were the only ones who knew how to read and write. Most people were illiterate in these times. As well with this the Church went through hardships of problems in the church, the black death, and of the Crusades to save the Holy lands from teh Muslims.
Feudalism became a part of Europe by 600-700 A.D. in which they made the system where people were judged upon there place in society. It is from this system that the ideals of Kings was created, the age of knights began and the spirit of giving thanks to your master for homage of the wheat given or food that they gave to you. Many wars were fought over petty squabbles but this became that age.
As the dark ages started to conclude and the age before the Renaissance comes, the start of the golden age was upon Europe. I wrote this sentence because most historians see the 1100-1300 as inbetween period or bewteen the dark ages and the renaissance but I think the three decades go hand in hand with each other. Pretty much what happened from 800 unward continues til the 1200-1300 A.D. when the world starts to reunite itself in reading, the arts, and a rebirth in learning. So from this dark time, it led to age of promishent of the golden age from the Crusades and from the future of countries and wars fought between each other.
Hear is some ideas or things you may use in your essay for the dark ages, hope some of this information has provided some help in your quest for a good essay. Hope you do well.
Reply:It sounds like your professor wants you to see the bigger picture of European history than the traditional historoc model of Europe; in which the classical era, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and the Modern era. That is because there are quite a few misomners about the middle ages.
The Dark Ages were called Dark simply because there were so few written records of the period that historians traditionally knew very little about it. However, modern Archeology has given what literature has not, and now the more accurate term for this era is the Migration era. The Migration era was a very warlike time, however, by the time the Migrations ended, around 800 CE, Europe became quite peaceful.
The age of faith is true in that the Augustinian traditions of Christianity However, to say that the age of faith solely existed in the Middle ages is false: there is considerable overlap. As far back as 300 A.D, Rome controlled Europe became fanatically religious, and it wasn't until the age of enlightenment that religion as a whole began to decline
The age of Feudalism is very similar to faith in that there was overlap in each era. Romans organized themselves into a feudalistic state as their economy collapsed, a process which took place over the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. Feudalism was the dominant economic system in Europe until the 19th century, with the Industrial Revolution and the French revolution, and didn't die out completely until Feudal Russia was conquered by the Bolsheviks in the 1910's.
Golden Age? Well, that is a stretch, because the common person, for much of history, lived quite miserable lives. Standards of living improved little over the millenia, as a farmer in 1700s France would not have felt out of place in Ancient Egypt. Conditions for the working man were slightly better in the high Roman era, as it was peaceful and trade was abundant, but standards of living for your average person really didn't start to improve until the industrial revolution.
this is a final exam question and i cant think of anything..can you help me out?
Middle ages!!!?
feudilism maybe
Middle ages!!!?
it was the Dark Age. A time when barbarians conquered.
it does depend on the time period in the Middle Ages
Reply:Dark ages
Reply:That's a very broad topic. My guess is that your teacher wants you to discuss each of the four topics (dark ages, faith age, feudalism, golden age). Then compare and contrast and finally, select which of these four best describes the middle ages, in your opinion. FYI... there is no wrong answer.
Reply:The Dark Ages an age of faith, feudalism and the start of a golden age. This era in history was a dark and difficult time for any person because the order that the Roman Empire seech to be and was under the rule of barbarians. As the barbarians took over they kept most of what people had intact but led to a time of dispear. To this the age of faith was upon many in Europe as the Holy Roman Church became the savior that saved Europe during this time of darkness. They led in converting people to become faithful catholics who followed the commandments and all the nine yards. It is from them that writing was reestablished by 1000 A. D . for they were the only ones who knew how to read and write. Most people were illiterate in these times. As well with this the Church went through hardships of problems in the church, the black death, and of the Crusades to save the Holy lands from teh Muslims.
Feudalism became a part of Europe by 600-700 A.D. in which they made the system where people were judged upon there place in society. It is from this system that the ideals of Kings was created, the age of knights began and the spirit of giving thanks to your master for homage of the wheat given or food that they gave to you. Many wars were fought over petty squabbles but this became that age.
As the dark ages started to conclude and the age before the Renaissance comes, the start of the golden age was upon Europe. I wrote this sentence because most historians see the 1100-1300 as inbetween period or bewteen the dark ages and the renaissance but I think the three decades go hand in hand with each other. Pretty much what happened from 800 unward continues til the 1200-1300 A.D. when the world starts to reunite itself in reading, the arts, and a rebirth in learning. So from this dark time, it led to age of promishent of the golden age from the Crusades and from the future of countries and wars fought between each other.
Hear is some ideas or things you may use in your essay for the dark ages, hope some of this information has provided some help in your quest for a good essay. Hope you do well.
Reply:It sounds like your professor wants you to see the bigger picture of European history than the traditional historoc model of Europe; in which the classical era, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and the Modern era. That is because there are quite a few misomners about the middle ages.
The Dark Ages were called Dark simply because there were so few written records of the period that historians traditionally knew very little about it. However, modern Archeology has given what literature has not, and now the more accurate term for this era is the Migration era. The Migration era was a very warlike time, however, by the time the Migrations ended, around 800 CE, Europe became quite peaceful.
The age of faith is true in that the Augustinian traditions of Christianity However, to say that the age of faith solely existed in the Middle ages is false: there is considerable overlap. As far back as 300 A.D, Rome controlled Europe became fanatically religious, and it wasn't until the age of enlightenment that religion as a whole began to decline
The age of Feudalism is very similar to faith in that there was overlap in each era. Romans organized themselves into a feudalistic state as their economy collapsed, a process which took place over the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. Feudalism was the dominant economic system in Europe until the 19th century, with the Industrial Revolution and the French revolution, and didn't die out completely until Feudal Russia was conquered by the Bolsheviks in the 1910's.
Golden Age? Well, that is a stretch, because the common person, for much of history, lived quite miserable lives. Standards of living improved little over the millenia, as a farmer in 1700s France would not have felt out of place in Ancient Egypt. Conditions for the working man were slightly better in the high Roman era, as it was peaceful and trade was abundant, but standards of living for your average person really didn't start to improve until the industrial revolution.
How did the roosevelt administration attempt to promote economic recovery?
Through a "new deal"...building things , retirement...
How did the roosevelt administration attempt to promote economic recovery?
By getting involved in WWII...
How did the roosevelt administration attempt to promote economic recovery?
By getting involved in WWII...
Does anyone know the name/have an image of the cover of this civil war book?
Hello, about a few months ago I went to Barnes and Nobel, and remembered seeing a book about the Civil war. The cover depicted General Lee and General Grant about to fight. I neglected to buy it, but am now interested in it. Does anyone know the name of this book, or have a picture of the cover? Thanks.
Does anyone know the name/have an image of the cover of this civil war book?
I don't know the name of it, might want to look it up on barnes and noble under the civil war, probably can buy it online on there site. Give that a try
Payout
Does anyone know the name/have an image of the cover of this civil war book?
I don't know the name of it, might want to look it up on barnes and noble under the civil war, probably can buy it online on there site. Give that a try
Payout
Which was the first reighning monarch to live in Buckingham Palace?
Queen Victoria.
What year did Buckingham Palace become a Royal Residence?
Buckingham Palace (then much smaller and known as Buckingham House) was bought by King George III in 1762, for use as a family home by his wife, Queen Charlotte.
Queen Victoria was the first reigning Monarch to use the Palace in its current form as an official working base for the Sovereign; she came to live at Buckingham Palace (from her home at Kensington Palace) in July 1837.
Which was the first reighning monarch to live in Buckingham Palace?
Victoria was the first sovereign to live there (from 1837).
Which was the first reighning monarch to live in Buckingham Palace?
It was Queen Victoria 1819 - 1901
Reply:Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria; 24 May 1819 鈥?22 January 1901)
Reply:You can't 'Live' in Buck Pal, it's too draughty and there's all those soldiers clanking up and down and tourists gawping in all day long. That's why we spend so much time at Balmoral, Sandringham and our favourite- Windsor Castle.
What year did Buckingham Palace become a Royal Residence?
Buckingham Palace (then much smaller and known as Buckingham House) was bought by King George III in 1762, for use as a family home by his wife, Queen Charlotte.
Queen Victoria was the first reigning Monarch to use the Palace in its current form as an official working base for the Sovereign; she came to live at Buckingham Palace (from her home at Kensington Palace) in July 1837.
Which was the first reighning monarch to live in Buckingham Palace?
Victoria was the first sovereign to live there (from 1837).
Which was the first reighning monarch to live in Buckingham Palace?
It was Queen Victoria 1819 - 1901
Reply:Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria; 24 May 1819 鈥?22 January 1901)
Reply:You can't 'Live' in Buck Pal, it's too draughty and there's all those soldiers clanking up and down and tourists gawping in all day long. That's why we spend so much time at Balmoral, Sandringham and our favourite- Windsor Castle.
Why did the Hindu's and muslims dilaike each other?
because they fought in india
Why did the Hindu's and muslims dilaike each other?
Muslim's are told to dislike anyone that hasn't accepted Allah.
Why did the Hindu's and muslims dilaike each other?
don't know the dates, but Pakistan used to be part of India. After fierce religious civil war, Pakistan emerged. the two countries still dispute over "holy cites, and provinces"
It has to do with the history of the region. India, Pakistan and Kashmir were one country that was ruled by Britain. Then, because the Hindus didn't get along with the Muslims, the Muslims of that country were give what is now called Pakistan.The governor of India was Muslim and the governor of Kashmir was (probably still is Hindu). Most the people of India are Hindu so, when they were given a chance to decide their own future they decided on a Hindu government. Most of the people of Kashmir are Muslim.. and even though they were promised the opportunity to decide their own future.. such a promise has never been fulfilled. India insists on keeping Kashmir... even though a great majority of Kashmiris are Muslim ... because India is a very poor country and Kashmir is rich in natural resources.
Reply:I would say old rivalries.
Reply:It has to go back to their civilizations centuries ago. The Muslims conquered India and made themselves the top of the Indian Caste System like the Aryans.
Due to their blood roots, the two ethnic groups just don't normally get along. That's why after Ghandi's death, British partitioned India into West/East Pakistan and modern day India. Why the British had to partition India? because the Muslims who were living in India resorted to violence and wanting their own independent Nation.
Right now, India and Pakistan both have nuclear arsenals ready to use them if they must and they are currently fighting over the region "Kashmir" which is high in mineral resource(fresh water) which both country lacks and especially for Pakistan because it is their only fresh water source.
Reply:As a foreman of the bridge at Tsavo would say to John Patterson. "Hindu and Muslim hated each other because Hindu eat pork and Muslim eat beef" Cows are consider sacred to Hindus and therefore Hindus cannot eat beef. Muslims consider pigs to be unclean therefor they cannot eat pork. Muslims worship only one god while Hindus worship many gods.
Reply:Their religion barrier obviously.
Why did the Hindu's and muslims dilaike each other?
Muslim's are told to dislike anyone that hasn't accepted Allah.
Why did the Hindu's and muslims dilaike each other?
don't know the dates, but Pakistan used to be part of India. After fierce religious civil war, Pakistan emerged. the two countries still dispute over "holy cites, and provinces"
It has to do with the history of the region. India, Pakistan and Kashmir were one country that was ruled by Britain. Then, because the Hindus didn't get along with the Muslims, the Muslims of that country were give what is now called Pakistan.The governor of India was Muslim and the governor of Kashmir was (probably still is Hindu). Most the people of India are Hindu so, when they were given a chance to decide their own future they decided on a Hindu government. Most of the people of Kashmir are Muslim.. and even though they were promised the opportunity to decide their own future.. such a promise has never been fulfilled. India insists on keeping Kashmir... even though a great majority of Kashmiris are Muslim ... because India is a very poor country and Kashmir is rich in natural resources.
Reply:I would say old rivalries.
Reply:It has to go back to their civilizations centuries ago. The Muslims conquered India and made themselves the top of the Indian Caste System like the Aryans.
Due to their blood roots, the two ethnic groups just don't normally get along. That's why after Ghandi's death, British partitioned India into West/East Pakistan and modern day India. Why the British had to partition India? because the Muslims who were living in India resorted to violence and wanting their own independent Nation.
Right now, India and Pakistan both have nuclear arsenals ready to use them if they must and they are currently fighting over the region "Kashmir" which is high in mineral resource(fresh water) which both country lacks and especially for Pakistan because it is their only fresh water source.
Reply:As a foreman of the bridge at Tsavo would say to John Patterson. "Hindu and Muslim hated each other because Hindu eat pork and Muslim eat beef" Cows are consider sacred to Hindus and therefore Hindus cannot eat beef. Muslims consider pigs to be unclean therefor they cannot eat pork. Muslims worship only one god while Hindus worship many gods.
Reply:Their religion barrier obviously.
What was Ku Klux Klan during the civil war?
a group of people who usually live in the souther states who dont like blacks and perform strange rituals. and the civil war should explain their role during it.hope i helped
What was Ku Klux Klan during the civil war?
Nothing.
The KKK wasn't formed until after the Civil War.
The American Civil War was fought between the northern half of the United States and the southern half from 1861 to 1865. This war ended in 1865 and resulted in the freeing of Black slaves.
The Klu Klux Klan, a white supremacist group, was immediately formed the next year in 1866.
What was Ku Klux Klan during the civil war?
Elizabeth is correct. The Ku Klux Klan wasn't formed until AFTER the Civil War by certain Southerners who were damned if they were going to actually allow the Blacks to feel "free."
They were the ones behind Jim Crow, Lynchings, all that nasty stuff.
Watch "Mississippi Burning."
Reply:The Ku Klux Klan did not exist until after the civil war.It was started by Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866
Reply:There was no KKK then. The original Klan was formed in and in response to Reconstruction, and died a natural death at the end of Reconstruction. The current Klan has its origins in the early twentieth century.
Reply:As above, but as I admire NBF's Civil War career, let me just add that Forest got out after a few years-the KKK was too much for him!
Check out the chapter in "Freakanomics" about the breaking of the KKK through the radio broadcasts of "Superman".
What was Ku Klux Klan during the civil war?
Nothing.
The KKK wasn't formed until after the Civil War.
The American Civil War was fought between the northern half of the United States and the southern half from 1861 to 1865. This war ended in 1865 and resulted in the freeing of Black slaves.
The Klu Klux Klan, a white supremacist group, was immediately formed the next year in 1866.
What was Ku Klux Klan during the civil war?
Elizabeth is correct. The Ku Klux Klan wasn't formed until AFTER the Civil War by certain Southerners who were damned if they were going to actually allow the Blacks to feel "free."
They were the ones behind Jim Crow, Lynchings, all that nasty stuff.
Watch "Mississippi Burning."
Reply:The Ku Klux Klan did not exist until after the civil war.It was started by Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866
Reply:There was no KKK then. The original Klan was formed in and in response to Reconstruction, and died a natural death at the end of Reconstruction. The current Klan has its origins in the early twentieth century.
Reply:As above, but as I admire NBF's Civil War career, let me just add that Forest got out after a few years-the KKK was too much for him!
Check out the chapter in "Freakanomics" about the breaking of the KKK through the radio broadcasts of "Superman".
History help, PLEASE.?
Identify one antiwar argument made by protesters of the Vietnam War, and one pro-war argument made by supporters of the war.
History help, PLEASE.?
the fear that their political ideas would leak northwards into china etc,
History help, PLEASE.?
Pro war: the avoidance of communist China to gain control over Vietnam
Anti war: peace
birthday flowers
History help, PLEASE.?
the fear that their political ideas would leak northwards into china etc,
History help, PLEASE.?
Pro war: the avoidance of communist China to gain control over Vietnam
Anti war: peace
birthday flowers
History Final Exam Study Guide. Help please? :D?
The United States played the role of peacemaker in the 1990s. Give two examples to support this conclusion.
History Final Exam Study Guide. Help please? :D?
well when they first tried to liberate iraq, operation desertstorm or something
History Final Exam Study Guide. Help please? :D?
Dayton Accords
History Final Exam Study Guide. Help please? :D?
well when they first tried to liberate iraq, operation desertstorm or something
History Final Exam Study Guide. Help please? :D?
Dayton Accords
Whre can i find information about "el dorado"?
i search on wikipedia and encarta....
but i need more information (at least 3 more links)
el dorado was this mithical city that was made out of gold....
the one who gives me more links will get 5 stars and ten points
Whre can i find information about "el dorado"?
i've only saw the disney film i'm afraid!! maybe try google it and see what comes up? x
Whre can i find information about "el dorado"?
I don't understand, just google it. (by the way its spelled "mythical").
Reply:Start by spelling correctly and maybe wikipedia etc will be able to help
Reply:http://www.humanities-interactive.org/ne...
(check the essays links)
http://www.eremite.demon.co.uk/Tairona/1...
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/o_mui...
http://www.kacike.org/cac-ike/ElDorado.h... (link to many links)
http://eldoradoinc.com/eldorado.htm
http://eldoradoinc.com/legend.htm
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Places-o...
http://history.howstuffworks.com/south-a...
but i need more information (at least 3 more links)
el dorado was this mithical city that was made out of gold....
the one who gives me more links will get 5 stars and ten points
Whre can i find information about "el dorado"?
i've only saw the disney film i'm afraid!! maybe try google it and see what comes up? x
Whre can i find information about "el dorado"?
I don't understand, just google it. (by the way its spelled "mythical").
Reply:Start by spelling correctly and maybe wikipedia etc will be able to help
Reply:http://www.humanities-interactive.org/ne...
(check the essays links)
http://www.eremite.demon.co.uk/Tairona/1...
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/o_mui...
http://www.kacike.org/cac-ike/ElDorado.h... (link to many links)
http://eldoradoinc.com/eldorado.htm
http://eldoradoinc.com/legend.htm
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Places-o...
http://history.howstuffworks.com/south-a...
In what centuries did the acient greek civilization control most of the mediterranean sea?
They had a lot of influence from 600BC to 200BC, but "control" is debateable. Their trading networks stretched from their colonies on the Black Sea coast to Massila in southern France, but it was always in competition with other cultures-the Etruscans in northern Italy, the Phoenecians and Carthaginians in the Levant and central Med. respectively.
It was pretty up and down, the Athenians had control of the Aegean and Black Sea trade sewn up from 478-404, for example, but at the same time the Carthaginians were founding colonies in Sardinia and Spain.
The Hellenistic "Diodochi" or successors of Alexander were too busy fighting each other to protect the seaways, and from 320BC-200BC there was a gradual increase in pirates, especially in and around Cillicia (now southern Turkey`s Med. coast). With the fall of the Macedon in 196BC, the Romans took over most of the trade networks.
It was pretty up and down, the Athenians had control of the Aegean and Black Sea trade sewn up from 478-404, for example, but at the same time the Carthaginians were founding colonies in Sardinia and Spain.
The Hellenistic "Diodochi" or successors of Alexander were too busy fighting each other to protect the seaways, and from 320BC-200BC there was a gradual increase in pirates, especially in and around Cillicia (now southern Turkey`s Med. coast). With the fall of the Macedon in 196BC, the Romans took over most of the trade networks.
Why is Andrew Jackson so important to the war of 1812?
In the war itself, its largely a political reason. He won the battle for New Orleans on January 8, 1815, two weeks after the peace treaty was signed, though neither the British commander or Jackson were aware of the treaty. The attack on New Orleans was the last time Great Britain made any attempt at military conquest in the territory of the United States.
It was an impressive victory, and those were rather scarce in that war for the US. AJ managed to regenerate a nation's sagging spirits and his own political life with one victory.
Slippers
It was an impressive victory, and those were rather scarce in that war for the US. AJ managed to regenerate a nation's sagging spirits and his own political life with one victory.
Slippers
Who were the contras? Why did we help them?
Well they were supposedly helping us. Although why don't you read about Iran Contra and learn about them instead of just coming here and asking us to do the work? Long story short is they were supposedly on our side, I believe it was part of the drug war, but we weren't allowed to give them money so Iran Contra is about running an end around to get them the money anyway.
Who were the contras? Why did we help them?
They were the rebels fighting the communist government in the country of Nicaragua. Contra is short for la contrarevolucion meaning counter-revolution. The communist goverment overthrew the goverment with help from Cuba. They were in control until the 1990 election which those in power were voted out of office.
Who were the contras? Why did we help them?
The contras in Nicaragua were fighting to overthrow the Sandanista government. There actually was never a single unified "contra" group, but a mixture of old Samoza regime types and various people who had been duped by the Sandanistas. To understand the former, you need to know a bit about the latter.
Samoza was a brutal dictator who professed a lot more support from the US than he ever actually had. In fact, the more the US pressed for reforms, the more Samoza cracked down on his political opponents. The Sandanistas were a small group, largely urban intellectuals, who failed in trying several of the old standard communist methods of insurrection, but they finally overthrew Somoza and took power themselves by giving themselves cover as a populist and human-rights group, garnering support from "liberation theologists" within the Church and among several international human-rights groups. They even had offices in New York. All groups one cared to look at were heavily populated with nice people who were working for a noble cause. This included many of their best spokesmen. Unfortunately, this was all cover for the Sandanistas, who retained the leadership positions.
When the Sandanistas came to power, of course, there was no longer reason in their eyes for such subterfuge. And of course most of those who'd been working for them were not exactly thrilled at having been duped. About the only person I can think of that never caught on was President Carter. Those who'd been used were an obvious ground for several groups who fought against the Sandanistas.
Who were the contras? Why did we help them?
They were the rebels fighting the communist government in the country of Nicaragua. Contra is short for la contrarevolucion meaning counter-revolution. The communist goverment overthrew the goverment with help from Cuba. They were in control until the 1990 election which those in power were voted out of office.
Who were the contras? Why did we help them?
The contras in Nicaragua were fighting to overthrow the Sandanista government. There actually was never a single unified "contra" group, but a mixture of old Samoza regime types and various people who had been duped by the Sandanistas. To understand the former, you need to know a bit about the latter.
Samoza was a brutal dictator who professed a lot more support from the US than he ever actually had. In fact, the more the US pressed for reforms, the more Samoza cracked down on his political opponents. The Sandanistas were a small group, largely urban intellectuals, who failed in trying several of the old standard communist methods of insurrection, but they finally overthrew Somoza and took power themselves by giving themselves cover as a populist and human-rights group, garnering support from "liberation theologists" within the Church and among several international human-rights groups. They even had offices in New York. All groups one cared to look at were heavily populated with nice people who were working for a noble cause. This included many of their best spokesmen. Unfortunately, this was all cover for the Sandanistas, who retained the leadership positions.
When the Sandanistas came to power, of course, there was no longer reason in their eyes for such subterfuge. And of course most of those who'd been working for them were not exactly thrilled at having been duped. About the only person I can think of that never caught on was President Carter. Those who'd been used were an obvious ground for several groups who fought against the Sandanistas.
How would you characterize US-Soviet relations during the 1970's and 1980's?
tense
How would you characterize US-Soviet relations during the 1970's and 1980's?
Lovely.
How would you characterize US-Soviet relations during the 1970's and 1980's?
Cold, as in Cold War. Look it up.
Reply:Our USA started the cold war at the very end of World War 2, not that the Soviets were trustworthy in their agreements with the Nazis, by our setting up spy electronic surveilincing across the border from Azerbaijan. That resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis and a number of other tit-for-tat actions and retaliations.
We became each others' genuine enemy, and many spies on both sides died without being recognized publically over this. But similarlly, over 200 Israeli spies are currently in our own US prisons for espionage against our nation, and that is a small number of the actual number who got away with it.
What happened in the former KGB agent Livinenko case in England a year ago, who died from radioactive Pulonium-210 poisoning is an example of the kind of activities that went on between the Soviet Union and our United States during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Although many Soviets actually admired our nation, they were dedicated to subverting and overthrowing our nation because of their national politics and mind-control over their society. But politically, our nation did everything it could to keep us in that posture of being enemies!
Reply:vietnam war ended for the u.s. in the early 70's.
the soviets fought a war in afghanistan in the 80's and lost
How would you characterize US-Soviet relations during the 1970's and 1980's?
Lovely.
How would you characterize US-Soviet relations during the 1970's and 1980's?
Cold, as in Cold War. Look it up.
Reply:Our USA started the cold war at the very end of World War 2, not that the Soviets were trustworthy in their agreements with the Nazis, by our setting up spy electronic surveilincing across the border from Azerbaijan. That resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis and a number of other tit-for-tat actions and retaliations.
We became each others' genuine enemy, and many spies on both sides died without being recognized publically over this. But similarlly, over 200 Israeli spies are currently in our own US prisons for espionage against our nation, and that is a small number of the actual number who got away with it.
What happened in the former KGB agent Livinenko case in England a year ago, who died from radioactive Pulonium-210 poisoning is an example of the kind of activities that went on between the Soviet Union and our United States during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Although many Soviets actually admired our nation, they were dedicated to subverting and overthrowing our nation because of their national politics and mind-control over their society. But politically, our nation did everything it could to keep us in that posture of being enemies!
Reply:vietnam war ended for the u.s. in the early 70's.
the soviets fought a war in afghanistan in the 80's and lost
Civil War Homework Help Please!!?
1. How did the war goals of the Union and Confederacy differ?
2.What factors contributed to the spread of disease among Civil War soldiers?
3.Why did General Lee go on the offensive against the North?
please give your answer with the corresponding number please help thank you so much
Civil War Homework Help Please!!?
1: The Feds needed to compel the south to rejoin the Union; the South needed to show the North it wasn't worth the effort and to let them leave the union permanently.
2: Poor diet (hard tack, bully beef) and limited access to good drinking water-the first weakens the resistance to diease, the second is a major source of infection-dysentry, typhoid, parasites etc.
Cramped living conditions in tents, often exposed to the elements and with poor hygiene.
Limited understanding of infectious diseases and almost no antibiotics meaning the doctors didn't know wht the diseases happened or how to stop them.
3: If Lee could force another humiliating defeat on the North he thought they would start a dialogue for ending the war. He also thought Maryland, which had slaves, might be induced to defect to the Confederacy. He hoped to secure lots of materials like boots and ammunition, and it is easier to feed your army off captured and looted food in enemy teriitory than it is to make your own people provide food for them. It has the added bonus of devestaing the enemy countryside too. Finally, Britain and France might be induced to recognise the Confereacy as a nation rather than as rebels.
Civil War Homework Help Please!!?
1) Really the overall goal of the Union was to preserve the Union. The goal of the Confederacy was to achieve (or maintain) independence from the North.
2) Many Civil War soldiers came from farms and small towns where they had not been exposed to many diseases. When they got around other soldiers, and went through cities, disease spread rapidly.
3) Lee's offensives (plural) into the North had a few reasons. The biggest was to take the pressure off of the Southern countryside, especially during the harvest. Also, he believed a decisive victory on Northern soil would reduce the Union's desire to keep fighting. However, the battle of Antietam, in Maryland, was basically a draw (although McClellan called it a Union victory) and Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, was a decisive Union victory and a major turning point in the war in the Eastern theater.
Reply:1. The war goals were mostly slavery... south wanted it and the north did not. But the south believed they would be unable to function without it, like if someone said we were to go without electricity.
2.
CAMP FEVER: This term was used for all of the continuing fevers experienced by the army: Typhoid Fever, Malarial Remittent Fever, and Typho-malarial Fever. The last named is a combination of elements from the first two diseases. This combination, Typho-malarial Fever, was the characteristic "camp fever" during the Civil War. Symptoms included: a pronounced chill followed by an intermittent fever, abdominal tenderness and nausea, general debility, diarrhea, retention of urine, and furring of the tongue.
TUBERCULOSIS: Infectious disease causing tubercles in the lungs, characterized by fever, weakness, and emaciation.
more here: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kylawr...
3. Lee privately ridiculed the Confederacy in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "revolution" and a betrayal of the efforts of the Founders. The commanding general of the Union army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee said he was willing as long as Virginia remained in the Union. Lee was asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which he replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."[23] After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede and so Lee turned down the offer on April 18, resigned from the U.S. Army on April 20, and took up command of the Virginia state forces on April 23.
Reply:1. The Confederacy wanted to leave the nation, and to hell with the rest of the bunch. The Union wanted them to stay, which to make them stay, necessitated marching down there and forcing them to stay under the entire USA's rulership
2. Lack of proper hygine, lack of privies, lack of clean drinking water, close quarters allowing easier spread of disease, espcially lice and mice born disease, general exposure to cold weather making men's immune systems vulnerable
3. The best defence is a good offence. Sometimes you have to go up and smash the enemy where he lives to keep him from coming down and smashing you where you live.
For extra credit, write on your paper "The north would have kicked the south's butt in a quarter of the time had the Union Army been issued Abraham Lincoln's favorite gun, the Spencer Rifle, which held 7 shots that could be fired with the flick of a wrist, and would have been devestating vs the Confederate Traitors using their slow muzzle loaders, but the Generals were a bunch of worry-warts and had no vision, so the Union stuck with their muzzle loaders too
2.What factors contributed to the spread of disease among Civil War soldiers?
3.Why did General Lee go on the offensive against the North?
please give your answer with the corresponding number please help thank you so much
Civil War Homework Help Please!!?
1: The Feds needed to compel the south to rejoin the Union; the South needed to show the North it wasn't worth the effort and to let them leave the union permanently.
2: Poor diet (hard tack, bully beef) and limited access to good drinking water-the first weakens the resistance to diease, the second is a major source of infection-dysentry, typhoid, parasites etc.
Cramped living conditions in tents, often exposed to the elements and with poor hygiene.
Limited understanding of infectious diseases and almost no antibiotics meaning the doctors didn't know wht the diseases happened or how to stop them.
3: If Lee could force another humiliating defeat on the North he thought they would start a dialogue for ending the war. He also thought Maryland, which had slaves, might be induced to defect to the Confederacy. He hoped to secure lots of materials like boots and ammunition, and it is easier to feed your army off captured and looted food in enemy teriitory than it is to make your own people provide food for them. It has the added bonus of devestaing the enemy countryside too. Finally, Britain and France might be induced to recognise the Confereacy as a nation rather than as rebels.
Civil War Homework Help Please!!?
1) Really the overall goal of the Union was to preserve the Union. The goal of the Confederacy was to achieve (or maintain) independence from the North.
2) Many Civil War soldiers came from farms and small towns where they had not been exposed to many diseases. When they got around other soldiers, and went through cities, disease spread rapidly.
3) Lee's offensives (plural) into the North had a few reasons. The biggest was to take the pressure off of the Southern countryside, especially during the harvest. Also, he believed a decisive victory on Northern soil would reduce the Union's desire to keep fighting. However, the battle of Antietam, in Maryland, was basically a draw (although McClellan called it a Union victory) and Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, was a decisive Union victory and a major turning point in the war in the Eastern theater.
Reply:1. The war goals were mostly slavery... south wanted it and the north did not. But the south believed they would be unable to function without it, like if someone said we were to go without electricity.
2.
CAMP FEVER: This term was used for all of the continuing fevers experienced by the army: Typhoid Fever, Malarial Remittent Fever, and Typho-malarial Fever. The last named is a combination of elements from the first two diseases. This combination, Typho-malarial Fever, was the characteristic "camp fever" during the Civil War. Symptoms included: a pronounced chill followed by an intermittent fever, abdominal tenderness and nausea, general debility, diarrhea, retention of urine, and furring of the tongue.
TUBERCULOSIS: Infectious disease causing tubercles in the lungs, characterized by fever, weakness, and emaciation.
more here: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kylawr...
3. Lee privately ridiculed the Confederacy in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "revolution" and a betrayal of the efforts of the Founders. The commanding general of the Union army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee said he was willing as long as Virginia remained in the Union. Lee was asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which he replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."[23] After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede and so Lee turned down the offer on April 18, resigned from the U.S. Army on April 20, and took up command of the Virginia state forces on April 23.
Reply:1. The Confederacy wanted to leave the nation, and to hell with the rest of the bunch. The Union wanted them to stay, which to make them stay, necessitated marching down there and forcing them to stay under the entire USA's rulership
2. Lack of proper hygine, lack of privies, lack of clean drinking water, close quarters allowing easier spread of disease, espcially lice and mice born disease, general exposure to cold weather making men's immune systems vulnerable
3. The best defence is a good offence. Sometimes you have to go up and smash the enemy where he lives to keep him from coming down and smashing you where you live.
For extra credit, write on your paper "The north would have kicked the south's butt in a quarter of the time had the Union Army been issued Abraham Lincoln's favorite gun, the Spencer Rifle, which held 7 shots that could be fired with the flick of a wrist, and would have been devestating vs the Confederate Traitors using their slow muzzle loaders, but the Generals were a bunch of worry-warts and had no vision, so the Union stuck with their muzzle loaders too
Ancient Roman history Questions?
Which event sparked a battle between Romans and Etruscans in the streets of Rome, which resulted in the freedom of the Romans from their Etruscan overlords?
Once the Romans had rid themselves of their Etruscan king, they set up this type of government, in which Rome would be ruled by laws and elected officials:
Romans built __________ to celebrate their many military victories.
Which group of warlike people invaded central Italy looking for territory, killing many Romans and ransacking cities?
Ancient Roman history Questions?
Republic
amphitheatres
Vandals
Ancient Roman history Questions?
I am not sure who exactly was involved but the Etruscan ruler Tarquinus Superbus (or something along those lines) raped a girl of social standing which resulted in the Romans rebelling...
They set up the republic after this
The romans built TRIUMPH ARCHES which the victorious general and his army passed under when returning to Rome after the Senate had granted a Triumph.
The Celts or Gauls (more or less the same) invaded central Italy and at one point sacked Rome, which resulted in Romans fear and distrust towards 'barbarian' peoples.
flowers and gifts
Once the Romans had rid themselves of their Etruscan king, they set up this type of government, in which Rome would be ruled by laws and elected officials:
Romans built __________ to celebrate their many military victories.
Which group of warlike people invaded central Italy looking for territory, killing many Romans and ransacking cities?
Ancient Roman history Questions?
Republic
amphitheatres
Vandals
Ancient Roman history Questions?
I am not sure who exactly was involved but the Etruscan ruler Tarquinus Superbus (or something along those lines) raped a girl of social standing which resulted in the Romans rebelling...
They set up the republic after this
The romans built TRIUMPH ARCHES which the victorious general and his army passed under when returning to Rome after the Senate had granted a Triumph.
The Celts or Gauls (more or less the same) invaded central Italy and at one point sacked Rome, which resulted in Romans fear and distrust towards 'barbarian' peoples.
flowers and gifts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What were some of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times?
What were of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times (Shakespears's time) or roughly around the 15th-16th. I already know about DaVinci, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Gutenberg . What else could I touch on.
What were some of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times?
Not really scientific but they learned to keep their jackets out of puddles. It's more manly to heft the girl up and carry her, and you get a quick fumble at the same time..............
What were some of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times?
scientific method, gravity, ecocentric model, advancement of gov't, Shakespeare himself, development of the telescope, electricity, stuff like that. Give these a try.
What were some of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times?
Not really scientific but they learned to keep their jackets out of puddles. It's more manly to heft the girl up and carry her, and you get a quick fumble at the same time..............
What were some of the scientific advancements in Elizabethan times?
scientific method, gravity, ecocentric model, advancement of gov't, Shakespeare himself, development of the telescope, electricity, stuff like that. Give these a try.
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
Please
help
me
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
they were cranky.
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
Among other things, they formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which guaranteed that if any of the member nations were attacked, the others would come to their aid.
Reply:Almost to the point of Paranoia.
They formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Troops were deployed - in fact we still have a military presence in most of the world, especially in Germany.
We flew spy planes over communist countries - remember the U2? That how we also saw the missiles in Cuba, another communist country.
We formed the CIA out of the military OSS.
We had the McCarthy hearing were people were accused of being Communist and many lost there jobs or were "Black Listed".
Reply:the U.S. focused on the policy of containment. They did three things to react to the Iron Curtain. One was the Truman Doctrine which gave 400 million dollars to greece and turkey.
The second was the marshall plan which gave 12 billion dollars to different countries. This was made to give money to countries who fought against communism. The third was NATO which consisted of around twelve countries who agreed that an attack against one was an attack against them all. A little while later the USSR came up with their own version of NATO called the Warsaw Pact.
Please
help
me
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
they were cranky.
How did The United States and European Nations react to the Iron Curtain?
Among other things, they formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which guaranteed that if any of the member nations were attacked, the others would come to their aid.
Reply:Almost to the point of Paranoia.
They formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Troops were deployed - in fact we still have a military presence in most of the world, especially in Germany.
We flew spy planes over communist countries - remember the U2? That how we also saw the missiles in Cuba, another communist country.
We formed the CIA out of the military OSS.
We had the McCarthy hearing were people were accused of being Communist and many lost there jobs or were "Black Listed".
Reply:the U.S. focused on the policy of containment. They did three things to react to the Iron Curtain. One was the Truman Doctrine which gave 400 million dollars to greece and turkey.
The second was the marshall plan which gave 12 billion dollars to different countries. This was made to give money to countries who fought against communism. The third was NATO which consisted of around twelve countries who agreed that an attack against one was an attack against them all. A little while later the USSR came up with their own version of NATO called the Warsaw Pact.
Why did the Germans attack the U.S during WW1????
Please help asap!
I know Germany attacked U.S Merchant boats but why did they do it.
I thought it was becuase it they found out the the U.S was helping Great Britain by selling war items but i cant find any info on it..
if you can help pleas do i really need it!!!!
Thank You
Why did the Germans attack the U.S during WW1????
we said we kick *** and they said lets party
Why did the Germans attack the U.S during WW1????
they didnt, japan did, germany didnt attack us untill we attacked them
lol, i was thinkin of ww2
Reply:Wikipedia, read through it, and do your own damn homework.
Marko, you're thinking of WWII.
Reply:We were sending war munitions to Britain and in general supporting the British war effort. Although the US officially was neutral, it in fact favored the British.
Reply:The Germans said any ship going to Briatain is a potential target so stay away. The US said that violates the right to freely trade and were also shipping in lots of ammo and arms to help the British.
So US ships ended up running the U boat blockade and ineveitably some of them were sunk-notably the Lusitania, which blew up and sank so quickly because it was loaded with ammotal, despite the US assurances that it was a peaceful, innocent passenger ship.
Reply:Yes Germans attacked US ships because US ships were supplying britain.
Reply:German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain. The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival. The United States launched a protest, and Germany modified its rules of engagement. After the infamous sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships. Finally, in early 1917 Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realizing the Americans would eventually enter the war.[31] Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the U.S. could transport a large army overseas.
Reply:that's ww2 and to stop resupplying britian with much needed raw materials. this could help you out. http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/at...
Reply:We were supplying Britain with weapons and arms. The Germans were supposed to fire across the bow of a suspected ship and then search the ship for arms. The Germans instead fired on the ships with torpedoes without warning because the only ships that can get by the British fleet were submarines. The submarines have only torpedoes.
Reply:Germany was blockading Great Britain, just as the British were blockading Germany. International conventions hadn't quite caught up with the reality of modern warfare, but the Germans did warn the US in advance when they extended their blockade to include foreign-flagged ships. It's an open question whether Germany was the aggressor in firing on American shipping, or if the American ships were the aggressors in sailing into a wartime port under blockade.
I know Germany attacked U.S Merchant boats but why did they do it.
I thought it was becuase it they found out the the U.S was helping Great Britain by selling war items but i cant find any info on it..
if you can help pleas do i really need it!!!!
Thank You
Why did the Germans attack the U.S during WW1????
we said we kick *** and they said lets party
Why did the Germans attack the U.S during WW1????
they didnt, japan did, germany didnt attack us untill we attacked them
lol, i was thinkin of ww2
Reply:Wikipedia, read through it, and do your own damn homework.
Marko, you're thinking of WWII.
Reply:We were sending war munitions to Britain and in general supporting the British war effort. Although the US officially was neutral, it in fact favored the British.
Reply:The Germans said any ship going to Briatain is a potential target so stay away. The US said that violates the right to freely trade and were also shipping in lots of ammo and arms to help the British.
So US ships ended up running the U boat blockade and ineveitably some of them were sunk-notably the Lusitania, which blew up and sank so quickly because it was loaded with ammotal, despite the US assurances that it was a peaceful, innocent passenger ship.
Reply:Yes Germans attacked US ships because US ships were supplying britain.
Reply:German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain. The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival. The United States launched a protest, and Germany modified its rules of engagement. After the infamous sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships. Finally, in early 1917 Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realizing the Americans would eventually enter the war.[31] Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the U.S. could transport a large army overseas.
Reply:that's ww2 and to stop resupplying britian with much needed raw materials. this could help you out. http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/at...
Reply:We were supplying Britain with weapons and arms. The Germans were supposed to fire across the bow of a suspected ship and then search the ship for arms. The Germans instead fired on the ships with torpedoes without warning because the only ships that can get by the British fleet were submarines. The submarines have only torpedoes.
Reply:Germany was blockading Great Britain, just as the British were blockading Germany. International conventions hadn't quite caught up with the reality of modern warfare, but the Germans did warn the US in advance when they extended their blockade to include foreign-flagged ships. It's an open question whether Germany was the aggressor in firing on American shipping, or if the American ships were the aggressors in sailing into a wartime port under blockade.
What were some events that demonstrated the end of the Cold War era?
tearing doen of the berlin wall!
What were some events that demonstrated the end of the Cold War era?
I think the biggest event is in August of 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, lol. That put an end to it.
But in April of the same year the Warsaw Pact ended, leading up to the fall of the soviet union... so take your pick. I'd go with August.
What were some events that demonstrated the end of the Cold War era?
I believe the Cold War continues, but at a reduced level of tension. Putin is clearly a dictator and nationalist.
Reply:For me there was only one BIG EVENT ... the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. I was born BEFORE that wall went up, and my mother was with the Air Force unit sent over to West Berlin right after the wall went up ... she transferred, but I still remember the 'terror' of those days. I watched the news on the TV and CRIED ... my kids watched with me, and to this day, I like to go to the place in our city where there is a small section of that old Berlin Wall to see it to remind myself that the Cold War is OVER!
Reply:The major reason was economic problems faced by all the communist countries because Russian economy was rapidly declining. And all those soviet states were dependent on Russian administration. So Russia broke and everything else followed.
Reply:Pitiful Ukrainian girls started populating the brothels outside Western military bases.
We stopped brandishing our nukes so frequently and actually started destroying some of them.
MiGs at airshows!
History
What were some events that demonstrated the end of the Cold War era?
I think the biggest event is in August of 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, lol. That put an end to it.
But in April of the same year the Warsaw Pact ended, leading up to the fall of the soviet union... so take your pick. I'd go with August.
What were some events that demonstrated the end of the Cold War era?
I believe the Cold War continues, but at a reduced level of tension. Putin is clearly a dictator and nationalist.
Reply:For me there was only one BIG EVENT ... the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. I was born BEFORE that wall went up, and my mother was with the Air Force unit sent over to West Berlin right after the wall went up ... she transferred, but I still remember the 'terror' of those days. I watched the news on the TV and CRIED ... my kids watched with me, and to this day, I like to go to the place in our city where there is a small section of that old Berlin Wall to see it to remind myself that the Cold War is OVER!
Reply:The major reason was economic problems faced by all the communist countries because Russian economy was rapidly declining. And all those soviet states were dependent on Russian administration. So Russia broke and everything else followed.
Reply:Pitiful Ukrainian girls started populating the brothels outside Western military bases.
We stopped brandishing our nukes so frequently and actually started destroying some of them.
MiGs at airshows!
History
British in India compared to British in China?
I have to write a 6 page essay comparing and contrasting the British occupation of India to the British occupation of China during the Opium Wars. There are very few links on the events in China. I know all about the Opium Wars; however it is the conditions during the British occupation, and like the return of Hong Kong that is fuzzy. Any help is greatly appreciated
Does anyone have information or links on 'The Hippies and the Peace/war Movement'?
They wanted to be an example of how to run the 'world' without govn't, - in the traditional sense.
They were after 'enlightenment' by any means necessary. Hallucinatory drugs (LCD) were expected / encouraged to be used.
Some lived on communes, - working on farms.
"Free-love" was a concept of "doing-it" with zero expectations of a relationship.
Some were anti-war, and therefore it didn't matter what govn't ruled over the people. Some hippies would have been "pinko-s". ie. somewhat 1/2 'red' as in 'red communist'.
Does anyone have information or links on 'The Hippies and the Peace/war Movement'?
The Hippies were a youth movement that started in part as a reaction to their parents generation during the 1960s. Drugs were a big part of the movement but not the complete focus. Love and compassion towards others, expanding your consciousness (both with and without drugs), spiritual awakening, appreciation of nature, and so on.
The Anti-war protests were composed of people from all walks of life, young, old, rich, poor, black, and white. The Vietnam War tended to draft the very poor and mostly black. Mainstream America began to change their opinion of the war when newscast started to show the mayhem. I still vividly remember watching a scene of a GI light a Vietnamese hut on fire.
At the time, my mother was in her 30s and active in both the Civil Rights and Anti-War Movements. She was a middle-class housewife with 3 children, a Sunday School teacher, college educated and appalled by what she saw. She thought Hippies were irresponsible but didn't care as long as they didn't hurt anyone.
It was a very complicated time in American history.
Tom Brokaw did an excellent documentary on the History Channel called "1968". The link is below. I recommend it. You can also check and see if your local library has a copy.
If you're old enough the movie "Apocalypse Now" is one of the best war movies ever. A movie called "Joe" also examines the alienation between the different social and age groups.
It Jobs
They were after 'enlightenment' by any means necessary. Hallucinatory drugs (LCD) were expected / encouraged to be used.
Some lived on communes, - working on farms.
"Free-love" was a concept of "doing-it" with zero expectations of a relationship.
Some were anti-war, and therefore it didn't matter what govn't ruled over the people. Some hippies would have been "pinko-s". ie. somewhat 1/2 'red' as in 'red communist'.
Does anyone have information or links on 'The Hippies and the Peace/war Movement'?
The Hippies were a youth movement that started in part as a reaction to their parents generation during the 1960s. Drugs were a big part of the movement but not the complete focus. Love and compassion towards others, expanding your consciousness (both with and without drugs), spiritual awakening, appreciation of nature, and so on.
The Anti-war protests were composed of people from all walks of life, young, old, rich, poor, black, and white. The Vietnam War tended to draft the very poor and mostly black. Mainstream America began to change their opinion of the war when newscast started to show the mayhem. I still vividly remember watching a scene of a GI light a Vietnamese hut on fire.
At the time, my mother was in her 30s and active in both the Civil Rights and Anti-War Movements. She was a middle-class housewife with 3 children, a Sunday School teacher, college educated and appalled by what she saw. She thought Hippies were irresponsible but didn't care as long as they didn't hurt anyone.
It was a very complicated time in American history.
Tom Brokaw did an excellent documentary on the History Channel called "1968". The link is below. I recommend it. You can also check and see if your local library has a copy.
If you're old enough the movie "Apocalypse Now" is one of the best war movies ever. A movie called "Joe" also examines the alienation between the different social and age groups.
It Jobs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)