Was rubber production a cause of American intervention in Indochina?

Today we have the Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, and other international doctrines and laws we have to abide by.

My question is- what would we see drastically different if we were to see the battles of the American Civil War vs. modern warfare, technology aside? What would we find appalling or unethical that they did then?

I was wondering if miners who worked for companies during the Gold Rush used some sort of safety features in case of an emergeny. Also do miners receive compensation if they receive an injury from a mining accident?

As a followup question, why did two clashing ideologies create a cease-fire with each other?

Forgive my lack of knowledge into North American history. The other day I was thinking about all the violence in Mexico in the last ten years and wondered, "Is this the most violence North America has seen in a century?". Have there been any other recent events with this much violent loss of life on North American soil? Obviously, 9/11 killed thousands. And many North American cities have been plagued by violence in for decades. But what other events in the last 100 years can we point to as this level of violence? Would we have to go all the way back to the turn of the last century? Seeking enlightenment here.

I know that the idea of a Time Machine has been written about by early British sci-fi authors, but are there any older or classic texts on the theory of time travel?

My friend dosent believe that old people existed in ancient times and everyone died at 15-20

I'm briefly aware that wars between Scotland and England were common up to the early 17th century where England and Scotland were united under the rule of James I (or VI) and the subsequent Act of Union in 1707. But being an English-controlled territory to say like Ireland for several centuries, why is it that similar events to the Easter Rising never happened in Scotland around the same time? I know that attempts at colonisation in Ireland by the Normans stretched back to the 11-12th century, introducing 'English' control? So is it a case of population change or proximity etc?

Thanks.

I realized earlier that I have never considered how science and research may be conducted differently in other cultures. And though this might be proven wrong, I would presume that what we call the scientific method (develop hypothesis, test, affirm or refute hypothesis, develop new hypothesis, etc.) is a Western conception. Throughout history, have the other civilizations of the world developed guiding principles or logic to test their theories, whether it be from their ancient philosophy to more modern developments?

Thanks in advance.

I always assumed it was true, but some quick google search yields nothing but untrustworthy websites arguing either case.

If so, why?

I hear a lot about how sword fights on television and in movies are built up to be dramatic, so I'm curious to what extent this was done to guns in a period similar to what it was like in late-1800s American West. How did an event like the Shootout at O.K. Corral really play out? Are there any fictional portrayals you think come closest to best representing this?

As I understand it, when the Mongols finally got inside of Baghdad they killed everyone and sacked the city.

1. Did the Mongols intentionally spread news of what they did to instill fear in other nearby peoples? Particular examples of this?
2. Did the Mongols ever use Baghdad as a sort of threat to get other peoples to surrender to them? Particular examples of this?
3. What were the Mongol's moral justifications for this? I've heard it was part of their religion that it was their task to conquer the world. Is this true?
4. Any specific tactics that would have been carried out as part of psychological warfare?

I mean, Rome had indoor plumbing, dams and aqueducts, even glass-blowing in the first century and when it fell to the Germanic tribes, Europe slowly regressed into nomadic huts.

I know that Europe rediscovered Aristotle and the like through the Muslims and I also know that the Catholic Church acted as the governing body during the so called "Dark Ages" but that's about it. How did we go about recovering everything we had lost in Rome? Did we have to essentially "reinvent the wheel?"

I have found that the Norwegian people were indignant to being under Swedish rule, but how do the people of Sweden feel? Were they proud of seizing rule of Sweden, or were they apathetic to the idea?

I'm writing a historical fiction paper over this time in Sweden and am having difficulty finding this particular piece of information, which I would like to be able to incorporate.

Thank you!

They must have known they were getting kings by another name. Were they scared of the power, or just OK with the seizing of power, just son long as the taboo of the name wasn't crossed?

Now that school's done and I have some time to read, my request for the wider-read is: what kind of plans (infrastructural, social, organizational etc.) for a post-victory scenario were in progress that would have realized Hitler's goal of an aryan utopia? Were these plans fantastical? feasible? My key interest is in plans/ambitions that went unrealized.

I'm thinking of things like the ambitious Prora resort. Maybe this question could be answered by someone who's read some books on Nazi architecture. I imagine there are places in Germany where I could expect to see colossal monuments and tributes had the Nazi regime taken victory.

For example, we see the loss of cases and endings in the Romance languages vs. Classical Latin, and even in Classical Latin vs. Old Latin. The same is true in Modern English vs. Old English.

Perhaps the real question is: why were they so complex to begin with?

That we know of, of course.