Most of the volunteers who joined up at the early part of the war did so on three year terms. And although many chose to re-enlist and finish the fight, plenty more decided they had done enough and returned home in 1864.

How were these men treated by their communities? Was there a sense that they had served with honor and should be welcomed back with as having done their part and now it was rightfully someone else's turn, or was there a sense that they were running away from a job not yet finished, and subject to community censure?

How much would these reactions vary geographically? Would a New England community view a man differently than one in the Midwest under the same circumstances? What about politically? Were Democratic strongholds more understanding of the non-reenlistments versus areas which were heavily Republican?

How did other veterans themselves view such men? Especially during the war as they stayed around and saw these men leaving, but also in later years at reunions and in general commemoration of the war?

Not strongly chemistry suited but I believe Genetics and Anthro together is a rising field. Would love to do research and archiving with different museums and the genetics minor may help supplement that.

During WWI the central powers turned pistols/handguns into semi and fully automatic weapons. Germany turned the Luger PO8 into a carbine/short rifle type thing. Austria-Hungary turned the Steyr M1912 into two different fully automatics, the Dopperpistole and the Repetierpistole. They also turned the frommerstop into a fully automatic gun. Why didn’t the allies turn any handguns into automatic rifles and SMGs?

I know this is a difficult question. It's hard to pinpoint a moment of white superiority in history. But I was wondering: all the colonialism, slavery, entitlement, oppression,... When and why did this feeling of superiority start?

There seems to be so much bias around the native Americans in terms of how violent/peaceful they were. Some people want to make them all out to be dumb, brutal savages. And other people want to say they were never prone to violence at all. I believe both of these views reject documented history outright. However, it still makes it difficult to know if what I am reading or listening to is reliable or not.

I realize everyone is biased to some extent so it may not be helpful to ask, but I figured I’d try anyway. Does anyone know of any sources to learn about native Americans that avoid the biases of both extreme views I mentioned above?

The world population has increased from ~200M in 1 AD to ~900M in 1800, which is around a 0.08% growth per year. From what I know and have read online, the average fertility was quite high, somewhere above 5 (I do apologize for generalizing across the whole history in this section, but it is my impression that this number didn't vary massively between different times and places before the Industrial Revolution). Also, as far as I know, the infant mortality before modern medicine was around 30-45%, so an average woman is probably going to have more than two children survive to adulthood. The average life expectancy at birth in most places hovered around 30-40 years, so taking into account infant mortality it should rise by quite a bit for those who survived to adulthood.

Given those rough numbers, we "should" see, on average, several children per family surviving to adulthood, each having several children of their own and so on, which would have led to a rapid increase of population; so why didn't it happen?

The first thing that comes to mind would be wars and accompanying famines and illnesses; however, the destruction of the two world wars and Taiping Rebellion has not had a significant long-term impact on the populations of their time - e.g. Japan after WW2 has recovered their pre-war population in less than a decade; even accounting for significant infant and maternal mortality improvements in the 20th century, I can't imagine historical wars being worse than that (leaving aside "small" local exceptions like Genghis Khan and Black Death).

I have recently discovered that my 2nd cousin, x3 removed was KIA in France in WWI but I'm having a hard time deciphering the report about him. I was wondering if there is a resource that helps break this down or if I need to hunt down each sentence. Thanks in advance!

Original: NA Marietta, O. Sept 18/17. Br Marietta, O. 22 10/12 yrs. Co H 330 Inf to Mch 6/18; Co B 323 MG Bn to June 5/18; Overseas Cas Cp Merrit NJ to June 29/18; Classification Camp 1 Dep Div to July 15/18; Co D 3 MG Bn to death. Pvt. St Mihiel; Meuse-Argonne; Defensive Sector. AEF June 29/18 to death. KIA Oct 9/18. Notified C.F.W. father, 412 Bellevue Ave., Marietta, O. Body returned to US on SS Wheaton Oct 1921.

My interpretation: "Departed/drafted Marietta, Ohio on Sept 18, 1917. Born in Marietta, 22 and 10months old. Company H, 330th Infanct to ?Mch? in June of 1918. Company B 323rd ?MG? Battalion on June 5, 1918. Overseas ?Cas Cp? maybe left Merrit, NJ on June 29, 1918. Classification Camp 1 Depot Division on July 15, 1918. Company D, 3rd ?MG? Battalion to death. After that, I'm confused about the mention of Pvt St Mihiel?

I have read online (not much of a source, ik) that in the past, it was entirely normal for guy best-friends to be as close as girl best-friends, they'd hold hands, embrace, stuff like that.

Nowadays, of course, any public display of affection tends to imply that the two people involved are dating, and men, especially, avoid showing any proximity -- Physical OR emotional -- to their friends, lest they be thought of as homosexual.

Why did this change? WHY did it change?

@Edit: I am of course referring to western men. I don't know how it is outside the west, or how it was before.

Do we know what Trojans were like? For example their language or Pantheon? And how close was it to Greek culture?

I was studying the history of the Byzantine Empire and one of the biggest threats lurking around Greek territory was the Bulgarians.

Since their arrival in the Balkans, they constantly defeated the Greek armies, captured or killed emperors, and even when they were integrated into Byzantium by Basil II, they managed to revolt and rebuild an empire with great influence on the peninsula. Hell, they were even responsible for overthrowing the Latin Empire and restoring the Greeks in Constantinople.

So my question is, what changed so much that the Turks could defeat the Bulgarians so easily and keep them under control for so long?

If there was no writing that we can find, no evident development that has lasting impact, how do we know there was a period of exactly just so long as we know it to have lasted? Is it possible we just made up a period of 100 years or so?

What benefits were there to the former that made such a massive transition worthwhile?

It's often said that morse code revolutionized long-distance communication, if that's the case then was there any form of long-distance communication before morse code?

A lot of what I learned in school portrayed the Civil Rights movement as rather organic, but I've seen some suggestions that it was more planned and strategic. For instance, I read that Rosa Parks was chosen as an icon over another woman (a young, single mother) who stayed in her seat because of public perception. Who were the key players and what strategies did they draw on? What was their inspiration?

Finally, are there any good books you would suggest on the topic?