I've wondered this for a long time now. I really don't know how to explain my question, but I'll try.

This was a war inside of a single country. How did experienced soldiers, leaders, and tacticians who were or were not already a part of the army get divided up? Did the army just split up? How did they decide who was in charge and in charge of what and where? How did they decide who would make decisions? Who organized the units and so on?

Basically, how did they lay out the details of this war with it being one nation fighting itself? How did the government address or handle things? You'd think they would benefit from certain things so they'd back certain groups or sides.

Thanks.

Recently saw someone claim this. Does any evidence exist of increased crime after a war?

Why are the eight presidents of the Articles of Confederation ignored?

I drive a truck around for 8+ hours a day and I feel my time could be spent better than hearing the same Journey song five times a night. I was looking for a wealth of information that is first and foremost accurate, secondly easy enough to understand without a background in history, and finally covering a broad range of topics from the evolution of cultures to wars, the impact of technological breakthroughs and everything in between. But most importantly, ancient aliens(kidding).

Any help in practically any subject will be appreciated.

I know after Stalins death there was a power struggle for the next leader and Nikitia Krushchev came on top, could someone just summarize what happened in general, and the fate of the other soviet leaders trying to ascend after stalin?

It is referring to the first measures taken by the Sovnarkom

'The decree on peace called for an immediate truce and peace with 'no annexations, no indemnities'.

I'm confused as to what that means exactly..

[deleted]

what would a Shang Noble and/or religious leader have said if I asked them why the dynasty should be in charge?

I'm trying not to apply anachronistic conceptions of consent here, but surely someone during the several centuries of legal slavery in the American colonies realized that slaves were subject to unique pressures to give their owners whatever they wanted. And I mean, realized that in the context of objecting to the situation, not taking private advantage of it!

What is the first recorded use of a barbell as a weight training device?

Strawberry banana has got to be one of my favourite fruit combinations, but it just doesn't make sense that these two ever got mixed together

I was reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, and in the chapter on the Italian Renaissance, and he claims that prior to the First Italian War of 1494, wars were 'almost bloodless', because the soldiers who fought in them were mercenaries who wished to minimize 'vocational risks'.

He then goes on to claim that when France invaded in 1494, 'French troops shocked the Italians by actually killing people in battle'.

Is this an over-exaggeration? Or were the politics and intrigue of Renaissance Italy so consuming that this more violent form of warfare was a new development in Italy?

Currently writing up a piece on a topic of my choice and I wanted to do something centred around British India, whilst also comparing it to other elements of the Empire. Basically the areas which I'd love to clarify are:

• Was the importance of India as a component of the British Empire overstated?

• Was the significance of other parts of the Empire eg. Africa or the Far East understated?

• To what extent was the political situation during the time of the establishment of British India ie. The Great Game responsible for moving India into a much more prominent position in the eyes of the British people and politicians?