I recently watch a VICE documentary on the rapid growth of heroin use in Iran and one of the reasons they attributed to the cause of this was the techniques used by America in Afghanistan against the Taliban. These techniques didnt work and the effects has spread.

Has there ever been a successful military occupation of another country that delivered democracy to the occupied country?

The Continental Army, during the Revolutionary War appears to have only fielded Light Dragoons which were effectively mounted infantry (a useful thing no doubt) but why did they not field the many types of contemporary cavalry used by the European powers. From lighter types such as Hussars and Uhlans/Lancers adept at eliminating broken infantry to Heavier Dragoons and Curassiers which were able to deliver armored charges.

I know the British in the period were very much fans of Light Dragoons and re-equipped some heavier regiments as Light Dragoons, but why would the Americans be inclined to copy their enemy, the British. Wheras their allies, the French, had very diverse cavalry.

Was this due to perhaps a lack of the different strains of horse ideal for different roles being absent in sufficient numbers to form units for the Colonials?

Did state forces ever produce more diverse cavalry units of the contemporary types other than Light Dragoons and the kind of Yeomanry Militia that is simply mounted militiamen not equipped and uniformed as a given formally "branded" type of cavalry.

So why all the eggs in one basket in the continental army cavalry equipping them all as Light Dragoons?

.

With both sides of the war depending heavily on iron ore to make steel for tanks and planes, did Sweden profit well from not being an official part of the war?

I need to write an essay about it and this is one of the few topics I barely know facts about ( I am from mid europe). Please help!

Additionally, was there any ideological strife upon the advent of democracy in Germany - especially for those in the East still holding socialist/communist values?

I've read a few times that one of the reasons Julius Caesar marched into Rome with his legions was because he feared if he disbanded his army and returned to Rome as he was supposed to, that he would be "prosecuted" for some reason.

I've never managed to get to the bottom of what he was to be prosecuted for, could anyone help me out? Furthermore if he WAS guilty of whatever the offenses were, why did Rome wait until he had amassed all that power and money in his Gallic campaigns before trying to bring him to justice?

EDIT: Sorry the title should have the word "finished" on the end

When I was in 2nd grade, we took a field trip to New England colonial schoolhouse. For the day we acted like students way back when. Anyone misbehaving had to run a lap around the school shaking milk into butter (or something). Also, a few us us were given pantomime slaps with the ruler for writing with our left hand. It's always stayed with me, but I have no idea how true it is.

I understand that the thaw in US-Chinese relations during the Nixon administration was mainly a reaction to fears of Soviet domination and the Sino-Soviet split. How did these dynamics change when Gorbachev came into power and when the Soviet Union collapsed?

Hi everyone,

I am wondering, since the Byzantine Empire was still up and running during the 13th century and the Mongols arrived not so far from their borders on multiple occasions, did the Byzantine had any plans or ideas regarding how to deal with them? Where there some trades/contacts (maybe later with the Ilkhanate or the Golden Horde?) between them?

Thanks!