Watching a doc on Colditz, and it explains how they managed to get all sorts of post items back to loved ones (small paintings etc). Logistically it sounds hard in war torn Europe.

So I'm assuming the opposing army would have all been killed, captured or fled but then what would the successful army do? Give properties in this new city to their own citizens? Would the civilians have been killed? If yes then wouldn't killing the occupants (metal workers, traders, farmers etc) make the city worth far less than before? Did the winning army leave people there and then continue their march or would they have recruited more people from that area to join? Or was it all just a matter of subduing the army there and then moving on and letting that city art it out self out?

Did it save lives or just provide food for safe population growth?

I'm not sure if my question is accurate but it feels to be this way through movies, memorials, and other propoganda. Does anyone know why?

Dying in battle gets you sent to Valhalla as far as I know, but what if someone was a fantastic warrior and managed to survive all of the battles they took part in? Would they not get an honorable afterlife because they were too good at fighting?

I asked this a while back but got told I had to narrow down the period a bit more. I also played a lot of Empire Total War and wanted to know more about the thousands of men I was marching to their deaths....

So I was curious what the process and details of becoming a rank & file soldier were between 1700-1800 and how it was viewed in society or in families. Can anyone shed some light?

And do our ideas of stereotypically evil looking uniforms come from these uniforms or did people agree at the time that the uniforms were "bad" looking.

For example, did Spain ever think about how would they fight Vice royalty of New Spain in the 18th century?

I've heard that Khmer Rouge was backed by the United States because of it's hostility towards Vietnam. Is this true? Was Pol Pot backed by western powers?

Khmer Rouge abolished money but didn't the state still control the means of production, along with most aspects of their citizen's lives? I have no idea what to call this kind of system. If there's no capital, can we call it state capitalism? If the means of production aren't controlled by the people, can we call it Socialism?

I've heard Khmer Rouge described as "Sartre's Children". What does this mean? As a fan of Sartre, I find this name very confusing and disturbing.

"We are not Communists. We are revolutionaries"-Pol Pot

What do you make of this statement? Pol Pot's version of Communism was brutal, depraved, xenophobic, racist, and in a way, could almost even be called reactionary but at the same time, it still called for the creation of a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Should we consider Pol Pot a Communist?

For instance, would the general public know of them and believe that they buried treasure, etc.

And how did someone become a driver? Were these people also informants who had to 'keep an eye' on customers or report suspicious activities? As a cabbie myself I'm just curious to learn more about my Soviet counterparts...

I'm quite well versed in how medieval armour evolved throught the centuries, so I have a pretty good picture of how a rich knight would be armoured at each time in the medieval period, but I would like to ask you how the average man-at-arms or levied peasant was protected (I assume a gambeson, mail coif, and some sort of kettle helm or Norman helm with noseguard?)

Also, I have found conflicting reports in academic writing about the composition of medieval armies. Some sources suggest that levied peasants made up a tiny percentage, if any at all, of an army, while others consider them to form the basis. I obviously realize that this must have varied throught the period, having much less unspecialized infantry in the Late Middle Ages, than in the High Middle Ages

Thanks.

I can't find any references to what happened to their children... if he did enslave them it would make him one of the darker figures in American history. Possibly human history, as I can't seem to recall any historical figure that enslaved his own children but I might be forgetting someone.

I'm working on an article about fictional engagements with the reign and person of Elizabeth II, who is of course still alive, but I'm curious to know if her illustrious great great grandmother received any such treatment during her similarly lengthy reign. Did she turn up, however briefly, in any of the titanic novels that were one of the chief literary features of her era? Was she "adapted" for the stage?

I'm interested in anything from farce to speculation to the most sober of realistic treatments. -- especially those that attempt, in whatever fashion, to present her as a human being rather than primarily as The Queen.

Recently learned peanuts are from South America, and I had for whatever reason always assumed they were from Africa. I know all the stuff about how Americans came to be world-famous for eating them from grade school of course, but how did they get into Africa? Were they deliberately introduced as a high-nutrient crop in food-aid efforts, or did they make it there by happenstance and get adopted more naturally (due to their similarity to the native African groundnuts maybe?)

I apologize if this is the wrong way to go about asking this, or the wrong way to use the [META] tag...

But, I have a goal to read a biography of every president. Some of them are easy: Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson each have tons of biographies, including ones that won Pulitzers. What about some of the more obscure presidents: John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, etc.? Sometimes it's hard to know what the "best" book to get, is.

This could also be applied to world leaders of other countries. It would be cool, for instance, to read about various dictators in Africa/Latin America, or Chinese Emperors, and so on...

Why and how did Western European people develop at an accelerated rate compared to those in Africa, Asia, and the Americas?

Since antiquity Europe has been the world's center of technological, educational, and social development. I know there were developed societies in Asia and the Americas that predate European exploration but it is undeniable that by the end of the Middle Ages Europeans were far more advanced than any other group. So much so that by the end of the 19th century European empires dominated the entire world. How did this occur and why?

Is there evidence to suggest that the internment of these groups of people created a tactical or military advantage for the USA? Was the internment necessary for the military victory of the USA?

Edit: I realize that "German American" is vague because a huge portion of people had German ancestry, and perhaps I should rephrase it and say "German immigrants"

Which particular decisions may be seen as pivotal and should we regard Lincoln as being the most important reason why the Union won?

Obviously the technology would make it somewhat impossible but how hard would it be to get warring countries to say something like "Ok OtherCountry, meet at that big field over there at noon. No tech made after YearXYZ. 2500 men each. Winner takes prize."? It seems like a lot of conflict could be resolved quickly and effectively if this were the case. It could even be made as a best of 7 series or something!