Hello. I’m writing a book about a US Marine that served in the Korean War and I need help figuring out the ranks. He started out as a private and reached the rank of lance corporal in the average amount of service months. His sergeant was killed in march of 1953. And his sergeant chose him(the man character)to replace him(the sergeant). And I’m have trouble find detailed expectations if a field promotion needs training to be become such rank(sergeant). Help would be very appreciate. (And I’m on mobile, so please excuse my grammar and spelling mistakes).

I know that historically, in many different places and times, honor has been treated as more important than it is now. The environment of sincerely swearing undying fealty to someone is foreign to me. Those honorable people that sincerely strove to meet the standards of the time- why would they act against someone with a stronger claim to the throne than their lord in the case of a succession war, or continue to serve a lord who performs horrible crimes and uses dishonorable tactics? Was it really seen as more virtuous to maintain loyalty to your lord than to put the rightful heir on the throne or resign over the crimes of your lord?

If I have to specify a time and place, I would say medieval Europe, but I want to understand the moral systems common throughout history.

Why didn't the central powers took over the Russian Empire after the russian revolution and russia getting kicked out of WWI?

Title. It's a weird question.

I'm a semi-conspiracy theorist and watched Lord Of War, so I assume somehow they may have been sold to other countries/militaries.

I recently watched the film "Portrait of a Lady on Fire", the closing scene of which shows one of the main characters (along with the rest of an audience in a theatre) listening to part of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, performed by an orchestra.

Earlier in the film, one the other other main characters tries to remember a part of the piece, and attempts to play it on a keyboard.

The film takes place in late 18th century France, and although it is not explicitly stated, it's reasonable to assume that the theatre shown in the film is supposed to be in Paris.

So my question is, how well-known was The Four Seasons (and Vivaldi in general) in that time and in that place, and therefore how likely is it that such a concert would have taken place?

My understanding is that The Four Seasons didn't achieve widespread popularity until 20th century recordings, although I may have misremembered this, which is why I ask the question.

Let’s say your starting point is Trier and you have optimal circumstances during your journey. How far would you get if you were to travel for a year, once by foot once by horse?

There are tons of stories from around the world but would the average person be scared to go out because of them or were they more skeptical than that? I find it easy to imagine they were convenient stories to tell children rather than to make them worry about bandits and the like.

There have been many great answers about all things related to December holidays, but for the life of me I can't find most of the ones i remember reading.

Would our highly talented FAQ Finders consider making a holiday bestof post featuring answers about Christmas, Yule, saturnalia, Hanakuh, Kwanzaa,etc?

I've been reading into the history of Brazil and found it surprising that a lot of the Asian, African and native population had no issues intermarrying with the European immigrants. Comparing this to former colonies such as Haiti (Under French rule) the United States whom had a strong racial policy up until the 1970s. Why was this?

The UK's General Haig (of 'lions led by donkeys' fame), Austria-Hungary's Conrad von Hotzendorf, Italy's Luigi Cadorna, Russia's Alexander Samsonov, and the Ottoman Empire's Enver Pasha all deserve a place of infamy in history for their utter stupidity. Not only were they incompetent, but many were cruel, both towards their own men and others (Haig seems appallingly insensitive to the deaths in the First Battle of the Somme, Cadorna's men were eventually forced to mutiny against him, and Enver Pasha was a genocidaire). Why was this the case? Is this a result of these generals being chosen only because of being aristocrats, rather than on merit? But this was the practice throughout most of recorded history. Why did it not have such a negative impact before?

Why didn't the Church just kill all the scientists like Da Vinci or Galilei, during the Renaissance? I know Galilei was house arrested, but why the Church didn't simply kill him and take his wealth? Neither of them was powerful noble or supper rich, so what protected these scientists?

If the availability of birth control was the main reason behind the Sexual Revolution, then why did condoms not spark it?

Japan has committed similar warcrimes during the time as Nazi Germany and while in Germany there have been major efforts (and successes) in order to rehabilitate their international image and educate their people to prevent any similar events in the future (accompanied by a universal regret and shame). Im wondering whether the same or something similar has happened in Japan?

Edit: It seems my question is misunderstandable. I am not arguing that whether Japan (or any other nation for that matter) should’ve apologised because thats beside the point. I am asking whether they have been held responsible by the Allied Forces as a nation who lost the war (like Nazi Germany) and if not what could be the possible reasons. My theory is that (as one comment pointed out) the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were such overkill on the part of the US that it put Japan into a sort of victimised position and overshadowed the atrocities committed by them.

My apologies if this sounds like a stupid question (and it probably is), but this is something I've been wondering about for a while now. Someone in the beginning of the movie says that "six eggs (are) too expensive," so it seemed weird that a resident of the same village, even an assumedly bourgeois member of society, could afford that many eggs a day. Add to the fact that food shortages and inflation occurred around the Revolution, and the price of five dozen eggs a day seems even more absurd. Then again, there are also quite a few factors at work, such as the fact that commercial farming was beginning to occur, as well as Gaston's social position, occupation as a hunter, and possibly his unmarried status. I'm no expert on the rural economy of France during the Revolution, so I'm not sure how I'd go about figuring this out, but it is a bit of a curious question.

Title basically says it all, came across this reading "Genghis Kahn" and it made me scratch my head. I was always taught Gutenberg took Europe from labor intensive manual transcription to modular type. But it appears similar technologies already existed at least among the huge and widely influential Mongol Empire. Was there printing in Europe before Gutenberg? If so what was it like? If not... Why not?

How many people were polytheist, jews, Christians, etc.? Also, did Christians self identify as Christians at this time? Did they consider themselves to be more of a sect of Judaism at the time?