The F105 sustained the heaviest losses among American aircraft types during the Vietnam war. Was there some factor that made it more vulnerable than other types. Were losses do to flying disproportionately more missions than other types? How did F105 loses vs. number of missions flown compare with other American aircraft?

As I explore the history of Poland, I am always drawn to look further back. This leads to a pre-christian Poland led by local princes, which leads to loosely organized tribes inhabiting the Wisla river area. Past that it becomes a question of slavic rather than Polish identity, and most of the research i've done points to the fact that they were originally a fairly cohesive group confined to a small geographical area, though what we know of them is what the Romans wrote. But my question is about where did they come from before that? Before they were Slavs, they must have separated from an earlier culture. What do we know about this?

I'm a Canadian History student and we're currently learning about the War of 1812. We were tasked with writing a thesis and when looking online for information on the end of the war I found countless sources giving different answers on who won. So who actually won the war of 1812?

I'm sure architecture and Edgar Allen Poe are somewhere in the middle.

Edit: sorry for the title grammar

Edit 2: Thanks to /u/x--BANKS--x for a great reply

Barely a decade after the American and French victory against Britain, Poland was partitioned for the third and final time, being mostly subsumed into the Russian Empire.

During the American war, two Poles - Kasimir Pulaski and Tadeuz Kosciuszko - played a prominent role in securing a victory. Pulaski died for the American cause, and Kosciuszko was deeply interested in American politics and republicanism.

How did the Americans react to Poland's demise? From an ideological standpoint, the conquest of a semi-republican state by an autocratic empire presumably would have horrified many statesmen. And from a diplomatic standpoint, the destruction of a country that produced people like Kosciuszko must have seemed tragic.

Do we know what President Washington thought about the event? What about other American statesmen? Was there any kind of official national response?

I just started watching the show Deutschland 83 and it made me wonder about when the East and West Germany reunited what happened to the East German army and intelligence apparatus? Were they respectively folded into the Germany army and intelligence services? Or were all the East German service members just relieved of duty? Did East Germany hand over all it's intelligence it had gathered and reveal stuff like it's spies who has been in the West?

I am wondering about the specifics. What exactly was Soviet tactical and operational doctrine in the late 60s and early 70s? What exactly did they teach the Syrians and Egyptians? Did the Arab armies actually use this doctrine in the field (specific examples)? If so, why did Soviet doctrine fail? If not, why did they not follow it?

That is, someone who isn't important in terms of being a head of state, or a general of an army or whatever. Just like a carpenter or whatever, who didn't suddenly do something noteworthy later (like try to kill a head of state or something), just lead an average life. Also by "reasonably construct a biography" I mean something more than "born at this time, married x, had job y, died at this time" some details about their life, that aren't merely constructed by understanding generally what it was like to be a common person at that time and place.

The prisoners greatly outnumbered the guards.

(x-posted from a rejected post on /r/history and because I noticed this was busier than /r/askhistory )

Guy died in the 1800's with factual text written on his gravestone since he did die in the war, I'm unsure if the gravestone was made right after his death or even decades later.

Photo taken after 2000ish by the look of the quality photo! Any help would be much appreciated :)

I'm pretty embarrassed to admit this, but if I were to look into a new field I'm unfamiliar with how would I find out who are the top historians and top books in that field? In my entire undergrad education, I've rarely heard of many historians being referred to as "top."

More specifically, I'm looking for the top 10 US culture and/or gender historians.

As far as I know cavalry basically took over scouting and skirmishing as soon as they appeared due to being faster and more flexible (and more accurate for the archer). But chariots stuck around for a few more centuries delivering headlong charges.

So when did cavalry took away that role as well. When did cavalry get the ability to deliver a charge as well as, or better than, chariots?

And what was the reason? New technology? Better horses? People just found out how to deal with chariots?

Obviously the answer will differ with time and place. But I'd like to know any specific examples.

Or do you have a theory of who, where or when it originated?

For clarity, I mean "cool" as in positively describing a person, thing or situation. Not as in temperature.

I’m currently making my way through Christopher Clark’s Iron Kingdom and ran into the interesting spectacle of Elector Friedrich III of Brandenburg crowning himself “King in Prussia” (as Friedrich I) in a thoroughly opulent ceremony in 1701. Backstory (as best I’ve understood it from Clark): The Hohenzollerns, Electors of Brandenburg, had acquired eastern (formerly “ducal” Prussia) in 1618 through the marriage of Anna of Prussia to Friedrich’s great-grandfather, the Elector John Sigismund. Clark talks about how Elector Friedrich III’s self-coronation was part of an effort throughout the seventeenth century for various rulers in the Holy Roman Empire (he specifically mentions Tuscany, Savoy, Saxony, Bavaria, and the Palatinate) to elevate their titles, ultimately aspiring to be kings. He goes on to discuss that this wasn’t just a matter of vanity but could actually have ramifications for how these various nations would be treated in diplomacy, most particularly in peace settlements (there evidently being some order of precedence involved).

So here are my questions:

• How was it that Elector Friedrich III could just up and crown himself king? My understanding, given what I’ve read in Clark’s book, is largely that because Prussia lay outside the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Emperors had no control over the title. This is why in negotiations with the Habsburgs, the Emperor said not that he was “creating” a new title, but “acknowledging” it (Clark, p. 74). In addition, the political environment at the time, leading up to the War of the Spanish Succession, meant that the Habsburgs were trying to enlist Brandenburg’s help in the upcoming war and went along with Friedrich III’s dreams of kingship in order to secure more troops for the war against France. So had they been in a stronger political position at the time, they might have been able to successfully oppose it, but they weren’t able to because they had more pressing concerns at the time.

• Was the fact that Prussia lay outside the Holy Roman Empire a major factor in why he was successful in crowning himself king and having no one dispute it? I think so. Clark doesn’t come out and say this, but given the examples of Savoy and Tuscany seeking to use the term of address “Your Highness” and the Saxon elector’s conversion to Catholicism to sit on the Polish throne, this certainly seems to be the case. So I’m guessing that the law of the Holy Roman Empire presumably forbade anyone in the Empire from just taking the title of “king” for themselves.

• Would the terminology “King of Prussia” have constituted a claim to “royal” Prussia (still controlled by Poland)? In other words, what were the reasons behind adopting the somewhat unusual formation of “king in” rather than “king of”? This is the only explanation that I can think of for the terminology that Friedrich chose.

• How did the Polish Commonwealth react to this coronation? Clark doesn’t mention it much, but does suggest that Friedrich was partially motivated to crown himself in order to cement his claim to and hold over formerly-“ducal” Prussia. I can’t imagine they would have been happy, but given that Clark didn’t mention anything specific, I’m guessing that they were for whatever reason not in a position to oppose Friedrich’s coronation.

• At what point in the history of Brandenburg-Prussia did “King in Prussia” yield to “King of Prussia”? Was it not until the acquisition of “royal Prussia” in the first partition of Poland in 1772 (when, except for Danzig and Thorn, all of Prussia belonged to Brandenburg-Prussia), or was there a gradual “creep” toward the arrogation of the title of “King of Prussia?” Clark touches on this a bit earlier in the book, I think – I seem to recall him saying that the transition from Brandenburg to Prussia was a somewhat gradual one. I haven’t really read anything about it in several hundred pages, though, so any further input on the evolution of this would be welcome.

Edit: formatting

I want to learn about the Khmer rouge, but i am struggling finding any books. I want to learn of their rise and fall.