Edit. Yes there is a spelling mistake in the title.
To sum it up, would previous battle experience have a significant impact on the risk of becoming a casualty? I distinctly remember someone talking about how the existences of "aces" in the air force was due to the massive importance of the experience gained after surviving just a few missions. I can see how that would be the case in a dog-fighting scenario since that would be very reliant on personal skill rather than other factors.
But as infantry on the ground, I have a much harder time seeing how it would matter that much. Where casualties are mostly from artillery, bombing or machine-gun fire the element of chance seems very high. And while I can see how a unit with long battle experience might have a significantly higher success rate in combat, would it boil down to the individual squad member?
3 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
If not, where does the trope first show up and how has it evolved?
3 Answers 2014-09-20
I am looking into going to college to get a PhD in history ( I am unsure as of right now what I want to specialize in.) I honestly love history and think that teach history to others would be the perfect job for me. the trouble is in the how. How do I go about becoming a history professor and How hard is it. I know that it is bound to be hard and very competitive (Just like other fields for college level education). For those of you who have tried and succeeded (or not succeeded). What do you recomend. I have some time ( I am in my senior year of Highschool right now) to get started.
Thank you for reading this small tome I just wrote for you read and look forward to your advice =-)
2 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
Actors were not like movie stars right so it wouldn't have been like George Clooney shooting Obama. But was he famous enough to be recognized? Were people as surprised that he did it as they were that Lincoln was killed?
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
English is not my first language, apologies if some words or concepts are not completely used correctly. Currently, according to what I've heard/read, Macedonia is a country that was formed in 1991 and consists mostly of (ethnically) slavic people. I've seen a lot of people claim that "Macedonia" never existed as a country before that and was always only a region of Greece. Then I got linked to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1913)[1] where it says on Greek "gains in territory":
The territory thus annexed included large parts of Epirus and Macedonia, including Thessaloniki.
Bulgarian:
Its net gains in territory, which embraced a portion of Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia (or Bulgarian Macedonia), including the town of Strumica, Western Thrace, and 110 km of the Aegean littoral, were about 25,030 km2, and its population was increased by 129,490.[5]
Serbian:
The territory thus obtained embraced central Vardar, including Ohrid, Štip, Kočani and Bitola in present-day Macedonia. By this arrangement, Serbia increased its territory from 48,300 to 87,780 km2 and its population by more than 1.5 million.[2]
How can Greece gain territory that was "already theirs" through a treaty ? What kind of "Macedonia" are we talking about here? The country? FYROM? The province of Greece? Sorry if I am completely misinformed and it's stupidly obvious, please enlighten me!
1 Answers 2014-09-20
The general who helped install him (general Zahedi) had also been in prison for collaborating with Nazis, until he was freed specifically to lead the coup.
How exactly does someone go from being a Nazi to being so friendly with Jews?
1 Answers 2014-09-20
I know he split it to give each nationality its own republic (Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia) but what I truly don't understand is why he didn't unite Serbia and Montenegro, along with serb majority areas in Bosnia and Croatia. If his true intentions were to divide the countries by ethnicities that would have been the way to go. (the same question applies to the formation of Croatia, he left many Croats in Bosnia)
3 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
I am particularly interested in sources concerned with English attitudes towards marriage before and after Henry VIII.
However, anything you could tell me or point me towards would be appreciated.
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
I've often wondered why Romans, who had such easy access to food, had a thriving industry and built technological marvels, and the natives in the Pacific Northwest were still so technologically behind Europeans when they had similarly easy sustenance. It's always seemed to me that technological advances were something that happened naturally, rather than an interest you had to take. Is there another factor I'm not considering for why they didn't progress more, or was it really just that they didn't feel the need to invent?
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
3 Answers 2014-09-20
I noticed that most buildings in Japan from all pre-modern periods were entirely build from wood. Even military installations.
Is there a historical reason for foregoing stone entirely? The castle walls themselves look to be very high quality stone work (suggesting availability of stone an the skill set to work it effectively) - so why not build the central keep and the wall towers from stone as well?
Wood seems to have a rather obvious disadvantage as a building material for military installations - wooden buildings burn easily. It is almost comical to read about various Japanese castles or temples, because inevitably there will be a point in history were the structure burned to the ground - sometimes for reasons easily avoidable, like Nijo Castle in Kyoto, which central keep burned to the ground because of a lightning strike.
1 Answers 2014-09-20
I'm asking about this kind of artwork. It seems to have been especially popular in the Vietnam War, but there are pictures of newer helicopters that have been painted on in a similar fashion.
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
1 Answers 2014-09-20
Say there was to be a gladiator fight on the 16^th of July in 100 AD and some slave would want to create some hype for this.
How would he write down the date? In roman numerals, but would the format be DDMMYYYY or MMDDYYYY or something completly different? Did they distinguish between AD and BC? How? Did they use a different calendar and how would that impact this? Is it even possible to convert modern dates to ones that would be understood by Ancient Romans?
1 Answers 2014-09-20
