I'm looking for any kind of book that talks about the history of either pre-hospital care such as paramedics and emts or battlefield medicine.

I have a morbid fascination for this common phrase in history: the city was sacked and the inhabitants were sold into slavery. I came across it again today when reading the wiki about Ctesiphon. After the Romans sacked the city at the end of the 2nd century the Sasanians recaptured it and made it their capital. It made me wonder about the logistics involved. How do you repopulate a city, do you force citizens to move there? I can also imagine that repairing the damage was a lot of work.

I don't really want to specify a time period for my question, but if I need to: during the Roman Empire.

[deleted]

Additionally, was it common for those so young to receive church endorsement?

We know plenty of the Greco-Roman gods but not of the rest. What writings or evidence has survived the test of time?

So I know first of all that in her official title was empress of India but why was she rarely referred to in the times preceding her as empress of Britain after all it was commonly referred to as the British empire during the Victorian era.

While reading several books on the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir (mainly using The Last Stand of Fox Company as a reference), soldiers claim to be facing Chinese soldier armed with a vast variety of different weapons. Type 24 rifles were apparently the "standard" infantry rifle for PVA soldiers but the marines account facing soldiers armed with Japanese arisaka rifles (both in 6.5mm and 7.7mm) Mosin-Nagant rifles, copies of the Thompson Submachine gun, russian DP machine guns, Type 50 sub-machine guns, and some belgian top loading infantry machine guns similar to the BAR (can't remember the exact name) etc. While I could understand arming primarily real echelon troops with non-standard equipment I can't understand the reasoning for arming front line units with so many different weapons that require different ammunition, especially if they were deployed specifically to assist the North Korean forces against the UN coalition. Was the Chinese supply train simply that good that they could provide all the different ammunition types for these troops or did china simply not make any effort towards standardizing it's military and just gave their soldiers literally anything that would go bang?

I thought Switzerland was politically neutral throughout history, so why did they ally with the Soviet Union? In addition, what was Ireland's motivation for signing?

I find there is an increasing number of people who refute this idea. I read that the borders are based on ottoman administrative regions, but does that really matter given that the Ottomans were colonizers themselves?

What advantages would a monarch have by being ruler of several domains without consolidation? How did this differ from the idea of unification, as seen in Spain in the 15th century with Aragon, Castile and the other Iberian kingdoms? I'm specifically wondering about Europe before Napoleon, when nationalism started to become a major factor, like with the unification of Germany and Italy.

My understanding is that the President may choose to elevate an Associate Justice to the role of Chief Justice, but that this is not normally done. Was the choice to have the President select the Chief instead of the role passing down automatically an intentional choice? If so, is there a record of why that choice was made?

So what were the Australians doing in the Vietnam War? just wondering because my grandfather was forced to fight over there.

R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz makes it clear that the temples in Egypt align with or otherwise display knowledge of celestial movements. Many other ancient sites have been discovered that correlate with celestial phenomenon that would take seemingly thousands of years of observations to get right. The Dogon are famous for seeming to possess advanced astronomical knowledge. How are these things explained by historians?

what are some alternative theories?

Dear Reddit, I'm 13 years old and I want to get my Bachelors Degree is Paleontology, and Archaeology. I'm wondering, that with progressing times and measures, that there will be nothing to discover anymore. So, I'm afraid that with the progressing times nothing will be to discover or learn in our history. Thank you if you answered!

I know up through WW2 soldiers could bring back captured weapons , particularly pistols and Arisakas. Many people have a story about their granddad's old bring-back from the war.

I'm wondering when and why the practice ended. I can't say I've heard of anyone talking about their dad's captured NVA AK-47 or anything like that.

I'm also curious about the limitations on bring-back weapons up til WW2. I've heard GIs were sometimes told they could not bring anything back while others were able to even get machine guns back to the US.

Thanks!

From what I understand, the roman generals needed to conquer land in order to satisfy their army with bounty and land whilst they needed the army to gain power within the empire. However, what I don't understand is why Rome conquered so much land when they we're still a republic, or why they even begun to expand to begin with?

Thanks on beforehand, Axel