I have a few questions regarding the American Air-mobile Platoon for a project I am working on.

First off, what was the operational size of an American Air-mobile Platoon during the Vietnam war. Notably during the battle of Ia Drang Valley?

How many helicopters would be required to transport this platoon? Would there be a helicopter reserved for the platoon specifically for medevac?

How would the platoon be armed both on paper and in actuality? How many radios would the platoon have, what type?

Would the platoon have a dedicated medic? Signaler? Forward Artillery Observer? Forward Air Observer? Or are these all higher level attachments that would be made.

Finally, any additional detail about this topic you could provide would be fantastic, I'm sure there are a few things I'm not asking that I'll think of later.

I've heard this several times and at first it seems to hold up after the British realised the importance of the navy to defend the island. On the other hand the defeat of the English Armada a year later suggets otherwise.

Did Europeans perceive themselves as living in a time of increased chaos and violence? Did Scandinavians perceive themselves as living in a time of increased prosperity, military superiority, and expansion?

Would Gaius Julius Caesar's sons name be (Insert roman name here) Julius Caesar if not how did naming and stuff work?

After the unconditional surrender of Germany in May 1945, most Germans seemed to accept the fact and didn't try to attack the armed forces of the occupying powers. Why was that?

Similar question on Japan, though I suppose the Emperor's "bear the unbearable" policy might have had something to do with it?

I've been reading some books focusing on USSR and Mao's period China (Life and Death in Shanghai is great!) and it seems that in both cases, a lot of effort was put into getting politcal prisoners to make false confessions. Isn't it easier just to fake the confessions? All in all, they didn't really care about getting to the truth...

Coulden't find a similar question on this sub. Thanks!

[deleted]

I've often seen the cliché of restaurant customers having to wash dishes if they can't pay their bill, mostly in comic books and such. From what I found restaurants don't really do this (nowadays at least), but I assume the idea has to come from somewhere.

So my question: was this actually a common solution in the past for customers to work off their bill?

[deleted]

Over the last few years I've been very interested in poking holes in the popular idea of the "dark ages", and one of the things that struck me was how awfully Eurocentric that idea was. That just because European society fared a bit worse than the Roman Empire, suddenly the whole world was doom and gloom.

Looking in my school history book, it made the claim that one of the main steps backwards from Roman times was the decline of "city culture" in Europe. The economy became agrarian, there were less coins and money circulating, the roads were ill maintained, trade and travel plummeted, et cetera. In short, Europe became a lot less 'urban'.

So, knowing that the dark ages were a very Eurocentric concept I asked myself: Well, how 'urban' was the Middle East then? They're often cited as one of the great civilizations of the early and high middle ages. Did they also have a very agrarian economy where taxes were paid in geese and wheat, and were their roads comparably ill-maintained? Did their cities also decline after the Romans left?

In short, assuming my history book is correct in that Europe became less urbanized, how did the caliphates of the Islamic Golden Age compare?

Here in Brazil lots of our presidents have some sort of fixation with the ideia of joining the "great countries" in the UNSC. Whilst talking to a teacher about that, he told me that this whole affair started in the 1940s, specifically when FDR visited Brazil - at the time ruled by populist dictator Getulio Vargas - and promised to Vargas that we would join the UNSC once it was created. Did it really happen? And why would he promise such a thing? Wasnt Brazil a very backwards and poor nation with not even a very big population? And if he did promise, why didnt Brazil join? Looking forward to answers that can explain the geopolitics involved in such agreement.

Did Carthage have a small professional army ? I mean they must of had something instead of just mercenaries. Do we know anything about their armour and how they were organized ?

It's often said that China had a sino-centric view of the world and anyone who was not Chinese was automatically considered a barbarian.

But I read recently that Europeans before the 18th century usually didn't use forks, and would instead cut their food with a knife and eat it with their hands. For Chinese people who've been using chopsticks for centuries, assuming they held the notion that eating with your bare hands is barbaric, that would certainly make Europeans seem like barbarians.

So basically, did Chinese people mention any specific Europeans dress, behavior, appearance, food, language, culture, etc. as seeming "barbaric"?

The Holocaust is regarded as one of the most important events in modern world history, but at what point did this perception reach the public? From what I have read, it took some time for knowledge of the full extent of the Holocaust to reach the American public (I have not seen much regarding Europe). I am having a difficult time finding sources on this topic. Some possible areas of inquiry I am interested in include: What effect did the Nuremberg trials have on public knowledge? When was the Holocaust taught as a major world event in secondary and post-secondary schools in both America and Europe? How has the public's perception of the event changed over time and what was the catalyst for this change?

Did any Native American tribe in North America know that stars could be used to determine where to go or was that only an Eastern principle?

Assuming that after the fall of the Roman Empire, representative government more or less died in Europe until after/towards the 16th Century. I suppose the Roman Republic wasn't really representative though. At least the people didn't vote for their representatives, even though people voted on their behalf. So in that aspect, I don't see much difference between feudal lords coming to terms and a noble Senatorial committee...

I'm sure most found Athens more democratic while Rome more Republic.

Either way, amongst feudal society's, was there a keen interest by the common folk in these representative governments of the past? Did serfs romanticize of centuries past? Were they even aware of the history?