I tend to forget that the Vietnam war was not just an "American" war, but also countless of nations who partook in it. But how were S.Vietnamese troops treated after the Americans departure and the eventual fall of Saigon and how are they treated now?

I'm looking for a book, or any kind of source really, to delve into that subject.

Also, what would be some essential part of the conflict some students should learn about ?

In modernity, there are plenty of conspiracy theorist saying that some shadowy cabal on either side of the aisle is orchestrating things and moving us toward a civil war.

This got me curious. Was there was a similar group that can be factually substantiated that guided the south toward secession during the American Civil War?

I am particularly interested in his consolidation of power and the unification of England. The book by David Bates appears to be quite popular, but it is old and over 600 pages long, something I, unfortunately, don't have the time for.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

After crushing victories at Lake Trasimene and then again at Cannae during the 2nd Punic War, Hannibal had a direct path to either cut the head of the snake entirely by marching on Rome, or strengthen the entire war effort by forcing a recall of troops guarding the peripheral territories of Rome to preserve the capital. In both instances he incorrectly assumed total victory was not needed to get Rome to negotiate, deciding to preserve his forces instead.

The Carthage Senate, in control of a weathier empire after Cannae, had the resources to give Hannibal overwhelming force. When a senator probed Hannibal's brother regarding if Rome had sued for peace, or the Iberian tribes had reinforced Hannibal's army, he was forced to say no. The senate concluded that their strategic objectives to obtain more territory on the islands or Iberia, were not being furthered despite Hannibal's string of military victories in the Italian peninsula.

Was it a bigger mistake for Hannibal to not have marched on Rome? Or for Carthage to not have resupplied Hannibal into an overwhelming force? And why?

He passed away a few years ago and nothing was able to be handed down to my father, he tries his best to tell me all the war stories he was told (like when an allied Italian dropped a wine barrel on my grandads foot, forcing him away from the frontlines and probably saving his life) as well as how amazing Monty was.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this kind of question but if there was any way to get anything back that was his i would appreciate the advice.

Like how much manpower or steel/oil production did Ethiopia make during WW2 (before Italy’s first invasion)? And incomparison to other countries

I recently read an article that there is evidence suggesting that the Roanoke Colony simply just assimilated into the nearby tribe, but whenever I have watched documentaries, read about the Lost Colony, or learned about it in school, the theories are always much more deadly (disease, murder, and so on). I have only seen this idea suggested in the past decade. There was no evidence of brutality or a reason for them to leave, and it's completely logical that they would end up with the people who knew the land they were on and how to survive off of it. Was it just the assumption that colonists would have never tried to get along with the Native Americans?

Growing up in New England there are a lot of folks with last names like Taylor, Smith, Brown, Jones, and Williams, but no so much names like Codsworth or Worthington? Is it a class issue?

Despite my efforts to find the answer to this, I haven't had any luck. I know that in The Imitation Game (2018), Turing proposes to Clarke because her parents want her to come home because she is unmarried and lives alone. The proposal in the movie was Turing's way of making sure she could stay at Bletchley. However, I haven't been able to track down any credible sources that either confirm or deny this.

(Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!)

The relationship between colonizer and colonized is obviously an extremely complicated one. How have Latin American countries dealt with the legacy of Spanish/Portuguese colonialism? Do they see themselves as part of the same world, ie the Anglophone world/Commonwealth? Has the relationships between these two parts of the world changed notably compared to the period after independence?

I've read the theory that the Huns may have been descended from the Xiongnu peoples of Ancient China and Central and Inner Asia. Historically, the Xiongnu are often considered to be a major ancestor or cousins of the Mongols.

To that end, did the Mongols have any knowledge of the Huns and Attila? Who they were and their campaigns in Europe? And did the Mongols have any theories on the origins of the Huns? Did they see the Huns ancestral kin and did they have any opinions on the Huns and Attila and how they fit into the Mongols' own narrative of destiny and conquest?

Hey I wanted to learn more about history, but I can’t really find a good website to learn it from.

Would the ancient/classical Greeks have actually believed in their gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Apollo, Athena, etc in a more or less literal way, as supernatural powers, or did they too see them largely as myths? Seems like they started as just ways to explain or represent natural phenomena. Anyway it seems like philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle didn't literally believe in a lot of that, based on their writings, but of course they were special.

In light of the recent findings of ancient Egyptian tombs near the Saqara pyramid, I was wondering what makes it so difficult that we can't find Ptolemaic tombs until now?

Hello! So this question is based more or less on two things:

(1)That I have Norwegian heritage and am deeply curious about things related to it. And (2), I’m looking into history-bounding as a side hobby, because why not pick up an entirely new hobby in these times of plague? :)

My main issue when trying to search for this stuff myself is that all I’ve found so far is solely related to bunads. Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re beautiful, intricate works with a lot of cultural significance. But I doubt such beautifully intricate clothing was worn every single day by common-class Norwegians, and it still doesn’t tell me exactly what they wore beneath and such.

For instance, I know that European undergarments during the time period included any number of variations of the slip, stays, and one or more petticoats, followed by whatever gown was fashionable at the time. I’m not looking at fantastical court gowns for this question, however - I’m referring only to common/peasant clothing.

I just wish I knew more! Like, what did they wear? What fabrics did they use? How many layers did they typically wear? What were their shoes made of? It’s such an interesting thing for me to think about!!

Anywho, I’ll stop talking your ears off. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to any insightful replies I may receive!