"Southeast Asia" is typically used to refer to the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Timor-Leste. But did the concept of Southeast Asia as a single region exist before that? If so, what tied the Southeast Asian states together?

It wasn't necessarily the mere fact that the states shared common security interests by virtue only of proximity. ASEAN began as a security organisation with limited membership; if the security interests had been common, then states like Cambodia and Laos would have joined right from the start instead of only later when ASEAN had taken on economic goals as well. And, even then, ASEAN isn't presently a security strategic bloc (security talks tend to take place bilaterally on the sidelines of ASEAN meetings).

It wasn't necessarily shared economic interests: some of the less developed ASEAN countries do much less trade than the others.

Could it have been the fact that they were all the objects, or attempted objects, of Japanese military occupation? The difficulty with this view is that Japan's vision of a 'Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' included parts of China and Korea.

So like the question is a little ambiguous I'll rephrase it here: how did those empires so much equipment to equip their armies? Did they have some sort of "industrial-scale" factories? Or many craftmen doing the same thing independently?

The Insignia that NCOs and Officers use on modern military dress (post WW1) look to be extremely small in comparison to say a Centurions Crested helmet. Combine this with mud, sand, dust on a battlefield, how did soldiers identify who a superior officer was given I'm assuming their identifying symbols would be covered.

Adding on, how did snipers know who to shoot since they would be so far it would be extremely difficult to see the insignia.

I have read many rumours and seen a few hokey documentaries that Australia 'might' have been visited by other cultures long before the initial Dutch East India Company voyages and the theory of Portuguese discovery.

Is there any actual proof that this is anything more than a theory?

I've read that it was an earthquake/fires, amd I've read it was the sea peoples. Nevertheless, civilizations constantly emerged and disintigrated in the fertile crescant and anatolia, building on top of eachother's ruins, like sumeria, babylonia, assyria, hittites, etc. Why did nothing really take the Minoan's place?

As the title says, I am taking a class on the Vietnam war. I am wondering what types of war crimes the Americans (us) committed during the war. How it was concealed from the public, and what was done about it.

Edit: I can't type when I'm drunk. Thanks for your replies!

I recently went to a gathering for the NEARA organization and heard some talk about a "theory" regarding a lost Mayan colony in the area of present-day Georgia called Itsapa that apparently featured in a Spanish map dating from the early 1500s. Other than that, though, I wasn't able to find much else about the topic. To be honest, I'm pretty skeptical, although I will admit I would not consider myself an expert on the subject.

Might anyone specializing in Native American or Mesoamerican culture enlighten me on this? Furthermore, I'd like to ask: how much influence did the Maya exert outside of their main sphere of influence (I assume it was limited to just the Yucatan) and how possible is it that they would form trade colonies outside of that area?.

I'm not so much interested in stars whose private lives got them into trouble, eg Fatty Arbunkle or HUAC. I'm curious about whether my Grandparents had a South Park of their day -- or whatever the controversial show is these days.

Then from there I can read on specific topics from what interests me in this general book/resource.

Like, what were the events leading up to the siege? What did the Davidians believe? Who fired the first shot? Was the raid legally justified? What was Koresh up to?

Is there a sourced and unbiased timeline available?

The Wikipedia entry is really editorialized, unsourced, and one sided too. It needs some serious work if anybody is interested

I know they didn't have the technology to work hard metals, but armor can also be made of leather, wood, and the like.

The title says it all, I feel like I can really get into a movie when I know that it stuck well with the source material, I feel like this is a pretty safe place to ask the question since these films could be considered a form of historiography.

Did these people assimilate back into society and embrace their independence, did they move to England?

Is this better fit for /r/AskSocialScience?