US coins go 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 (although admittedly 50 cent and dollar coins are rare). US banknotes (excluding the rare two-dollar bill) go 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100. As far as I know, there have never been a 25 dollar bill or a 20 cent coin. Is there a historic reason for this? Because it feels kind of weird that the two wouldn't match up in how they jump in value.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on a story I've heard a few times. During a professional military education program (Airman Leadership School) we were told that after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, there was a sort of student exchange program for military members of Russia and the US. When the Russian officers observed US officers, they found that by and large, they had very similar characteristics. However, when observing the US NCO Corps, they commented that they were leaps and bounds ahead of their Soviet counterparts in terms of training and experience .

I always suspected that this was an exercise in stroking our egos and I can't find any information to show me otherwise.

State Partnership Programs certainly existed and still do, but there is nothing on this particular story.

Was there such a disparity in the NCOs of both militaries? One that can be supported in terms of available training and other resources I mean.

In the cutscene, several other British warships were shown going in and out of port. Were the Portuguese allies with the British during this time?

I know there was a lot of piracy - eg according to Snorri, pirates from Estonia butchered and enslaved the crew of the ship Olaf Tryggvason was traveling on. (Perhaps I have not looked hard enough, but) I've seen no records of serious naval battles from the Viking era or before, in Northern Europe. When did genuine naval battles start in Northern Europe, and what were they like?

My understanding is that the political parties pretty much ignored the past in order to "heal the wounds" of the civil war. So PSOE did not run for election with the aim of "avenging" the crimes of Franco and there was no large scale prosecution of the old regime.

This seems odd to me because of the power the left had back in the civil war. Where did all these anarchists and communists go?

I'm try to get to know the typical day-to-day experiences of people from a variety of backgrounds during the mid-1700's Southern England.

Did they investigate crimes, arrest people, or were they mostly just used for fighting rioters and protecting the city?

Often old stories, myths etc across various cultures will feature a traveller seeking food and shelter as they pass through a town. Was this historically common? Was there less of a divide between the private and public spheres in ancient times, and a more relaxed attitude towards sharing possessions? I've read before of businessmen whose associates often came from out of town (merchants for example) who would be hospitable in ways that would be seen as unusual today - sharing beds with their guests for example. If hospitality was approached differently in ancient times, was this attitude customary across all social classes, regardless of economic circumstances?

When I was a child in primary school, we first learnt about Henry VIII & his infamous way with the ladies (divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived) as well as little bits & pieces about his reign: the Mary Rose ship, relationship with the catholic church & the founding of the Church of England so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, Thomas Cromwell, Henry's children etc.

I've seen innumerable things about Henry's life & reign: The Tudors, The Other Boleyn Girl, Wolf Hall, Henry VIII & his six wives etc (now there's yet another documentary series on Channel 5 about him). However all of these shows seem to simply rehash what the majority of the public already know. What are some interesting things about Henry VIII that isn't common knowledge?

What are the current historiographical debates surrounding this infamous king & his reign? How have they developed over time?

For all intents and purposes, the United States actively teaches its citizens about the genocide on the Natives and settlements have been reached with the descendants of the victims.

But no U.S. Congress and/or President have ever labeled it as a 'genocide'. I've only been able to rely on my deduction skills and I haven't been able to find an official reason for this kind of policy.

What are the historical (and perhaps political or legal) reasons for such a policy?

Or are there also things that the government explicitly never recorded?

Just finished reading it, it makes for a compelling read and minus the weird bits where he does the "from the inside of the mind" pov, he is very objective and does not speculate much at all.

I was wondering if there are any criticism of his work as I would like to read a counter view if it exists.

Also: were there germans who feared this situation could be extended for an indefinite amount of time?

How do Chinese people trace their family history and genealogy (especially given the huge numbers of Chinese diaspora around the world) when there are relatively few Chinese surnames, compared to the number of surnames in other cultures?

I just was watching end of "Dances With Wolves" andthere was a closing note before the credits rolled that said something like this : Thirteen years passed. Their buffalo all gone the last Indians gave up and some fort. Their culture passed into history" or something very nice like that. It made it sound like it was just some natural event. But I never hear academics on with neutral politics mention that US government committed genocide. Would the word "genocide" be used correctly to describe what happened to the Indians?

EDIT: I got an answer. It WAS GENOCIDE but USA wants to retain moral high ground so prefers to use euphemism in official government office statements. It makes sense. Thanks to all!

I'm thinking of civilizations being ahead in astronomy or medicine or math or something similar, but behind in war technology. Thanks.