I understand that 'contra' comes from the Spanish word for 'against.' I'm also aware that there were rebel fighting forces prior to the 1979 Nicaraguan conflict.

Was the term contra ever used in describing the Vietnam War? Did it only become popular post 1979?

Were other countries using the term in their news media when describing rebel forces?

Thanks for your time.

I recently watched 'Alatriste' (good film!), and in the last big battle scene, we have two forces of pikemen opposing each other. Instead of closing and hitting home, they kind of stand a few paces apart, pretty much the length of their pikes, and shake them in each other's faces, maybe occasionally thrusting a little bit. A lot of the actual killing though seems to be done not by the pikes, but my a small number of soldiers who duck under the pikes, scuttle to the other side, and stab at the legs of the opposing force with knifes and swords.

I had never considered this possibility before, but after watching the film, well, it kind of makes a lot of sense. So was this common practice for the era, or from the imagination of the screenwriter?

I can understand why the Northern regions would be lightly populated but why would there be so few people in the more southern areas of the Russian Far East? Why hasn't shipping or agriculture developed substantially?

I'd like to know what is interesting or important about the American War of Independence from an objective point of view (say, if aliens were studying a history of planet earth with no human agenda, what about it would be noteworthy).

I've been thinking about this lately as I haven't studied the war since high school, and since I went to a conservative Christian school I think my textbook may have had some bias in how it portrayed early US history.

Specifically, someone who we have confirmation existed and whose name we remember. So, for example, the Australopithecus Lucy wouldn't qualify.

I would like to learn more about the Pre-Columbian history of native peoples who lived east of the Mississippi River, especially anything known about their political history, written languages, trade routes, major trails/roads, major wars, treaties, famous leaders, towns/cities, etc. What book would you recommend that covers these topics in a readable way?

What I'm really not looking for is a history of the geography, unless it played an important part. What I am looking for, though, is the general history of Sweden as an entire country and the ups and downs it had faced, and a specific history of the politics and economics that strongly influenced Sweden.

Also, I'd like to know how Sweden took part in the Thirty Years War. Did they go in late to the party and did they become the talk of the town the next day, or did they come in sober and collapse on the steps outside on their way out?

Thanks, and if you can provide any links to sites that pertain that information, that would be very helpful!

One of the biggest losers of World War I was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which as a result of its defeat saw its empire being dissolved into several smaller countries. Another effect of the defeat and splitting of the empire were the loss of its navy. Where the most senior officers ended up seems to be well documented but the fate of the ships, lower officers and sailors are not that clear. According to Wikipedia the navy was confiscated, but further information than that seems to be hard to find.

So my question is: what happened to the ships, officers and sailors of the Austro-Hungarian navy after the war?

I'm writing an essay on the impact the Belgians had during their colonial rule over Rwanda/Ruanda-Burundi, but I've sort of asked myself a question that has left me curious: were there any identifiable differences in colonial methods of rule? I know there was a lot of violence, forced labour, (essentially) theft of natural resources, imposition of foreign-instated religious/economic/political practices, etc., but were there any other identifiable differences between how a "mother" country would rule its colonies? E.g., was it common, as the Belgians did with the Tutsis, to recognize one group as superior to the others? Are there other examples of this, or was this unique? Were there any other practices unique to the colonizer?

I looked through the list of readings for colonization and I'm not finding anything beyond what is already on my reading list, and I'm not even sure if this is a thing that has been studied or if it has been left as 'colonization was bad, this is generally why, end of story'.

I read an article where it mentioned that the Outer Hebrides is the last place in the United Kingdom where the sabbath is widely observed. Also, is the sabbath observed to the same degree in the southern more Catholic islands? If anyone can recommend some books about the history of the islands that would also be great.

Why is it that the B17 flying fortress is so much more known/used than the later developed B29 during the period of WWII?

Whenever I hear speaking about the heavy planes of WWII it always seems like its focused on the B17 rather than the more modern versions of it at the time.

Does anyone have any good sources surrounding the history of congressional investigations on the Wiretapping debate?

Looking for stuff before the the 1950s

Any help would be greatly appreciate!!

From what I've been reading, Buford feared the arriving Confederate army would take control of the high ground south of the town so he made steps to slow them down.

My question is, so what if Lee managed to take the high ground? Everything I've read implies that Meade would be forced to attack Lee's army on the high ground and would suffer horrible losses. Why? From my understanding, Richmond was no longer sending Lee men and equipment so if Meade simply encircled the fortified positions and just waited it out Lee's army would eventually just starve to death while the Federal army was still capable of not only getting resupplied, but to acquire more manpower.

My U.S. History teacher (I am a high school senior taking a freshman class) has written on papers that she was an anarchist and a socialist, but with my understanding of anarchism, being a socialist is not possible. Explain?

Hello r/AskHistorians! I am a big fan of this subreddit and I am excited to have finally found a question that is---I hope---worth asking!

I am currently translating a set of old family letters for a friend. These letters were sent to or from different parts of Austria-Hungary around 1900. The authors were from the Serbo-Croatian minority. One of the most interesting little tidbits from the letters are the authors complaining about military service. Indeed, one letter contains the complaint

"Einmal kommen wir doch an das Ziel, daß wir von den fesseln los sind, und ein freies Leben führen dürfen."

Someday we will reach our goal, that we are free of our bonds and can lead a free life.

This particular letter contains a passage where the author switches to Serbian from German in order to talk a little bit about his experience in the military. I find this choice to change language extremely suggestive.

All this makes me wonder: generally, what was it like for the Serbo-Croatian minority in the Austro-Hungarian empire? In particular, what was their experience of the military like? Military service appears to have been mandatory and universal, but in reality did it apply more so to some people than to others?

I eagerly await your responses!