Could people just buy a car and drive around if they've only rode horses before?

When were the drivers license instated, and did they have to take an exam like today?

¡Seems like there's a lot to the automotive revolution, but I don't know squat!

I've been wondering for a while, but nothing I've found online has a straight answer. Could American soliders in Vietnam come home at all for any reason, then go back to Vietnam?

I'm especially wondering about holidays- did any soldiers get to go back to America for holidays, and afterwards return to Vietnam?

Thanks!

They obviously had temporary holdings in the Latin states that were created. But did they gain anything that holds a long term benefit, whether it be cultural, militarily or spiritually?

Context: I just finished watching Apocalypse Now, aside from being a cinematic masterpiece it seems to paint the US military as being very ill-disciplined in Vietnam. Indeed as the story progresses the main character encounters a bigger lack of discipline the further up river he goes until eventually encountering his target, a rogue Colonel whom he is tasked with killing.

This is emphasized heavily in the last US military camp they reach whilst going up river, where the chain of command has broken down almost entirely and soldiers seem to just mill about and do nothing despite being constantly under attack by the enemy. There is also a cut section (available in the re-release) where a base has fallen to ruin and there is no commanding officer at all, the soldiers just lay about all day and get drunk.

I also noted the increasing use of drugs by members of the boat crew and how, in general, the more they abused these substances the more unhinged and error-prone they became. Culminating in one of the crew dancing around with a purple flare ('purple haze, man!') on the deck of the boat, attracting the attention of hiding Viet Cong who proceed to attack and kill one of them.

Question: So how big a problem was ill-discipline in the US military at the time? Were the conscripts really so error-prone and lacking discipline, or was this just for cinematic purposes? Some figures on drug use in the military at the time would also be very interesting. Do we know how many were disciplined for using acid or smoking marijuana whilst on duty?

Apologies if this has been asked, I searched the Vietnam section of the FAQ and couldn't find anything specific on this.

Seeing how Franco stayed in power after the war & wasn't disposed until his death in 1975? Would Franco protect them like South American leaders or would they have still been in reach of allied extradition?

I realize the concept of fascism didn't exist at the time, but could it retroactively be applied to the Roman Empire? The Roman Empire certainly had some of the trappings of what we now associate with fascism: cult of personality surrounding an all-powerful dictator, militaristic culture, glorification of conquest, etc.

Hi everyone, I'm an undergraduate majoring taking my first History class that is making me write a long research paper, around 25 pages. Any tips or tricks that you guys use when you're writing your academic stuff?

I'm reading a book at the moment (The Vikings: Voyages of Plunder and Discovery) and it mentions that the story of Ragnar being captured in battle and the whole snake pit thing around the 850's. It then goes on to say that king Aella may not have been in power until 866 and Ragnar is likely to have been killed by a Norse king in Ireland. What do we know about this?

I was looking at modern rank distribution in the U.S. Army, and I figured that the ranks would simply get more numerous as you got lower, but interestingly, they peaked at E-4, and the got smaller as you went further down the rankings.

However, during a period like WWII, I imagine the draft would have created a surge of privates and corporals. So what was a "typical" rank distribution in a U.S. Army Platoon during WWII?

An article on historic epidemics mentioned that "recent studies show that 'The Plague' instead may have been a virus similar to Ebola." Are these studies legit, or is it a bunch of weasel words to play on what is in the news right now?

As I learn about military history I often hear a lot about the campaign season. As I understand it, this refers to a situation where an army of soldier/farmer type chaps go off to wage war in spring, and till the land and harvest the crops the rest of the year.

I first encountered this idea with the early Romans, where it kinda makes sense to me as their first armies were not dedicated fighting forces but made up of the romanticized 'farmer soldier' that the Romans so idolized.

I also heard the term again here when reading about sieges. Somebody mentioned as a consideration for a commander the possibility that the siege would tie forces up for the 'campaign season'.

Imagine I am a general at some point after the early Roman period. What is to stop me from going 'Sod that' and readying my troops and storming all the castles I want in Autumn/Winter while everyone else politely waits for spring? Would my armored warriors not find the enemy soldiers working the fields and have an easy victory? Why/how did it so happen that everyone just kind of fell into this idea of a campaign season, waging war in 'agreed periods' when surprise is so useful in war?

That's all. I've read Hayden White, which would suggest no.

When researching a subject, it's important that the best books and articles about that subject written by other historians are read. What are the best methods to find those secondary sources?