Unless it was through conscription? Nowadays if you serve you get your college tuition paid for and other benefits so that is a huge reason, I have multiple friends who joined ROTC because of that. was it the same in WWI?

To be more specific, how much would a score for a symphonic work cost, compared to, let's say, the sheet music for a chamber piece? Also, were miniature scores or study scores available during this time period?

[Reposting because this wasn't answered yesterday]

I was browsing Iran's wikipedia today and read this:

During Nader Shah's reign, Iran reached its greatest extent since the Sassanian Empire, reestablishing Persian hegemony over all of the Caucasus, other major parts of West Asia, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, and briefly possessing over what was probably the most powerful empire in the world.

Can someone expand on this? Prior to today, I had never heard of Nader Shah, nor have I heard of any Iranian/Persian empire being considered the greatest in the world, especially in the 18th century when England was quite the world power. Is this just a case of poor editing on a wikipedia citation?

Across the world there are different languages, different units of measurement, and dozens of other cultural differences. Despite all our differences as far as I know every country uses a base 60 time telling system with 24 hour days. Has this always been the case through history or is it recent? Did there used to exist different systems of measuring time like perhaps a base 10 system with 20 hours in a day or something?

I'm rather curious to whether there were any cases of this happening to Allied or Axis bombers. And if there weren't any, were there any specific design features on aircraft to stop Gunners from putting a few rounds into their own tails?

After studying northern irish history I wondered why events such as the hunger strikes and people's democracy marches made such a difference while we never hear of such things before say 1650.

I know that the situation slightly changes now, while football gains popularity there, but, if one looks the history of football in Venezuela, it is extremely poor compared to even not so successful national football teams like that of Chile.

Also, why were they admitted at the same time? It seems to me that South Korea fit the mold of a "peace-loving nation" more than North Korea so it confuses me why they weren't admitted earlier.

I read that they were mostly assimilated, but the Bayeux tapestry shows that they used Viking-style longships including dragon-heads for example. Do you know of any other examples in their customs, language, weapons etc?

For example: when would people have first been given the last names MacDonald or Gabrielson if their fathers were not Donald or Gabriel.

So yea, pre 1950s events that led to the outbreak of the CW all boil down to this one thing... The Domino Theory. I keep reading about how the Domino Theory was a threat to the national security of the US, but what has been bugging me is, HOW? The countries being dominated by the USSR were all the way in Europe, so how was the spread of Communism even a direct threat to the US? I understand that the only time where communism posed as a direct threat to the security of the US was later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But the bugger is that I keep reading about this Domino Theory in the context of PRE-1950; where there is no concrete evidence to even justify or show that USSR or communism posing a direct threat to the security of the US.

I've seen people say it wasn't as bad as most people think, but I'm not really sure why. The indemnities demanded forced the Germans to print money to pay them off, and this led to hyperinflation, or so I've read. They also deprived Germany of many key manufacturing sites in the Rhineland, which could have been used to pay the indemnities.

Can someone help me understand this?

We've all heard how Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, and other generals were tactical geniuses. How important were their leaderships (and other leaderships in ancient wars) for the successes they achieved? Is our conception of them as military geniuses the result of propaganda, or were they actually as important to their respective armies as they seem to be? I'm asking this because I've seen it argued that Alexander's victories were due to the superiority of his phalanxes, Caesar had his legions, and Hannibal had his cavalry. Without dismissing the importance of the armies themselves, how important were the leaders?

I see a lot of modern media have most medieval fighters using swords. How widely used/effective were swords in war time as opposed to spears, maces, axes, or other weapons?

I don't necessarily mean anything worthy of treason charges (but wouldn't be oppossed to hearing about them). Did any members of the mercantile class see an advantage to independent American colonies, or politicians that strongly argued against it?

Historically, most societies are strongly to totally male-dominated. I know many societies had occasional female rulers (Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Mary, etc), but even then they were exceptions and virtually everyone under them was male. At what point did it become regular for women to have equal authority in ruling a country?

What prevented people in ancient Greece from turning multiple tablets in during the event of ostracism, thus illegally forcing a member of their society to leave the state for 10 years?

I am not asking about fighting just between the Americans and British but between all huge powers at the time. I don't understand why two armies would just fire volleys of bullets at each other and just stand there and take it. Is this just a hollywood myth?

I'd like to know the impression the rifle left on the Americans who first came up against it. As far as I'm aware, this is the time that the US had any real experience against the AK.

-What strategies were in favor -What weapons and armor were used? -What would the average soldier be equipped by? -What foes was this army employed against?