Is there any explanation as to how he kept his army loyal for such a long time? Merceranaries weren't exactly known for loyalty.

My wife's grandfather enlisted with the USAAF in 1942, and the only stories I had heard was that he was a mechanic in England, working on Mosquitos. His memory was pretty poor, but I don't know that you'd forget the type of plane you worked on (but what do I know).

At any rate, as far as I can tell, the USAAF did not operate Mosquitos, so it would mean that he worked on RAF equipment. Was this sort of "cross-pollination" among national forces common? How were assignments determined?

I'm still in the early stages of researching his service, but I thought I'd ask this here. Thanks in advance for any responses.

Excuse my ignorance if I'm just wrong.

I know that History Channel doesn't do much in the way of history anymore, but I watched their new three part special and in the section on WWII they stated that the Germans attacked France directly, then went back and took Belgium and the Netherlands after the fact. In all my studies I've always read that the low countries were taken first so as to bypass the Maginot Line, which only fell after the government capitulated.

History Channel has been know to be fuzzy on the facts but I've never seen them just flat out wrong, is this a mistake on their end or did I miss something?

My grandmother owns this interesting old oil painting of two knights dueling while ice skating on a frozen lake. They are wielding early matchlock pistols and their armor suggests the late Medieval period or Renaissance. I'm just wondering is their any historical basis for the piece, like some strange duel or something. Or is it purely a fantastical piece.

There's plenty of words in English that don't resemble their pronunciaton. But how did such an important word (is used as anumber, pronoun) never get seen to by spelling reform or any person who had an influence on the English language, when words like 'colour' and 'gaol' did? Add to that the fact that the pronunciation and spelling of the word are so different - 'wun' as opposed to 'own' or 'owna' (as I imagined it was pronounced when originally spelt).

As title says.

So we all know about the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incas, and the couple other empires/large scale civilizations of South America. And today, the only wholly native peoples of the continent are the small tribes throughout the Amazon. My question is, why? Did the two vastly different peoples coexist? Are they remnants of survivors? Were they slaves? Was there no contact at all until modern times?

Whether Lenin had a positive or negative impact on history, and how sincere his motives were in heading a revolution is something I'm having trouble figuring out (as a layman).

I recently finished Wild Swans, which amoung other things contains a history of modern China. It puts the blame for the worst parts of Communist rule pretty much at Mao and his wife's feet. In particular, he essentially gets the blame for:

-the great leap forward, -cultural revoluion -a general culture of ignorance -a fear of speaking one's mind

Is it fair to lay all these problems at Mao's feet, or were at least some of these products of the nature of the revolution in the first place?

I found a couple of answers on this topic, but I wanted to know if religion was used as the main argument or a secondary, not so relevant one, to keep slavery going.

I have always seen Gettysburg discussed as a Confederate defeat due to Lee's failure to organize his corps commanders efficiently, Longstreet's slow movements on the second and third day, and Stuart's search for personal glory. Few historians that I have read give credit to Meade, instead talking about the placement of the corps on the first day as being Reynolds's last act as a good commander, Hancock's effective management of divisions on the second day, and the individual courage of brigade and regimental commanders on the center and left Federal flanks. Did Meade do anything that would warrant accolades other than being the commander of the Federal forces during the three days?

Hi all! I've recently been doing some reading on the Napoleonic Wars and I was struck by the differences (that I think I see) in the uses of cavalry forces in that conflict to what I am used to in the American Civil War of 50 years and a continent different.

I'm asking the experts several questions about this issue, because my own understanding is likely flawed.

• First of all - were there in fact differences in the usages of cavalry forces? I notice a lot more cavalry versus infantry fighting in the Napoleonic era than I have ever heard of in the American Civil War. I understand that Cavalry was mainly used for scouting, screening, and in cavalry versus cavalry battles in the ACW. At Waterloo in particular, there was a lot of charging of squares and harassing of the line of battle. Did this go on in the ACW as well, and I am just not aware of it?

• If there was in fact a difference, what was this change due to? Was it a technological change of weaponry which ended cavalry charges? Was it merely a change in tactics which saw cavalry as more valuable for activities which specifically called for their range and speed?

• Lastly, anyone with any information about cavalry in either period, please share it. If you have any favorite stories or fun facts to share, now's your chance!

Thanks to everyone who responds, I look forward to learning quite a lot!

The Zimmermann telegram and the sinking of passenger ships are seen as mistakes on the German side that eventually pulled the US into the conflict. Were there similar mistakes that could have been made (or some that were made) by the British and French to make enemies in the US?

Is it correct to think that violating Belgian neutrality as violently as the Germans did to start the war made made the US neutral at best from the German perspective?

**Also, thanks to the mods for keeping this sub functional.