History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently fighting is intensely focused in the vicinity of Burger Town restaurants in suburban warfare.
 
Apparently fighting is intensely focused in the vicinity of Burger Town restaurants in suburban warfare.

We do have to protect the great American symbols of overconsumption, obesity, and drive-in dining after all.

In all seriousness, I'm not even sure if there's ever BEEN a case of suburban warfare, since suburbs generally spring up in areas that are economically prosperous and politically stable. Possible exceptions include New Jersey and Staten Island, which many of my fellow New Yorkers claim to be hellholes.
 
We do have to protect the great American symbols of overconsumption, obesity, and drive-in dining after all.
Didn't get the reference.
 
Surely any large city has suburbs. And surely there have been plenty of recent wars where there have been battles in large cities. Given that one force must enter the city for there to be urban fighting at all, there must have been fighting in the suburbs. For example, I can't believe that Baghdad doesn't have suburbs or that there wasn't at least some fighting in them in 2003.
 
Aren't North American suburbs generally more spread out than Europe and wlsewhere? At least that is what I have read quite a bit during discussions about urban sprawl. Our cheap gas, culture, space, and lack of a direct impact of WWII led to a lot of suburbs that are significantly less dense then Europe?

Overall, I doubt it would be much different than fighting in a small village or such and would really depend on the forces involved and the specific situation (it may be simpler to just plaster it with shells than to fight for it, or if there is a city providing a better advantage, just a minor rear-guard action and fighting withdrawal).
 
... Beirut springs to mind. :D
 
Aren't North American suburbs generally more spread out than Europe and wlsewhere? At least that is what I have read quite a bit during discussions about urban sprawl. Our cheap gas, culture, space, and lack of a direct impact of WWII led to a lot of suburbs that are significantly less dense then Europe?

Overall, I doubt it would be much different than fighting in a small village or such and would really depend on the forces involved and the specific situation (it may be simpler to just plaster it with shells than to fight for it, or if there is a city providing a better advantage, just a minor rear-guard action and fighting withdrawal).

I seem to recall something like that, sub-urbanization in America took a big hike directly after WW2. Most of the soldiers were brought home from overseas, baby boom started, people wanted to settle down for the good life? Crowded metropolises probably didn't appeal a whole lot in that sense and people didn't want to become farmer boys at large? :crazyeye:

In europe, many large cities suffered battledamage and population loss, so a fair bit of reconstruction had to be done I guess. I guess in post war urbanization major thing was the job and education appeal. We euros are just lazy in terms of stuff like school journey so we rather move close to the school so we can sleep till later in the morning :p

I guess it makes sense to utilize the good rail and bus connections in big cities, instead of spending hour(s) in a car during the rushhour everyday
 
It does make sense - though some people still prefer the illusion of open space even though they have to spend more time (on public or private transport)
 
Can anyone give me an approximation of just how much influence that Thomas Paine had on the American revolution?
 
Mary Magdalene - Jesus' wife, a prostitute or an apostle ?
 
Eh, the Catholiques stopped the whole prostitute nonesense in 1969.
 
Mary Magdalene - Jesus' wife, a prostitute or an apostle ?

There's no Biblical evidence that she was a prostitute outside of a popular association of the prostitute in Pericope Adulterae with St. Mary Magdalene, which (as far as I know) started with Pope St. Gregory I. Essentially it's just a theory that has turned into tradition.

That she was an apostle or Jesus' wife are both nonsense claims that are only pushed by those who have a clear agenda in doing so. There's no evidence and their claims are only propagated through non-peer reviewed mediums, like the History Channel.
 
I'm curious how one would determine the "influence" of a specific historical figure. I suppose you could do a statistical analysis of all literature containing a quotation or idea of Thomas Paine written during the era of the American Revolution and then compare that to the literate population of the Americas, but even that has several of its own issues.
 
Would the revolution have happened without him? or would it just have taken longer to get people all roused up to support it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom