In my classical studies class (high school) we are learning about Alexander the Great. I understand that Alexander was tutored by Aristotle, yet some of the material we have received mention a possible intimate relationship between Alexander and his tutor. I have also read from the resources given that young men who are training to be a part of the military were often tutored by older men who had to "win their affections". I am not entirely sure where the sources are from (possibly J.R. Hamilton). I would also like to know about the perception of homosexuality compared between Ancient Greece and today.

I've been reading Battle Cry of Freedom recently, and it goes into detail about how broken US politics was before 1860 and how violent the pro/anti slavery sides were getting. Yet when the South secedes, Lincoln and many northerns go to war, not to end slavery, but to "Preserve the union". Why was it so important to preserve the union with a bunch of states they voraciously disagreed with in the minds of northerns at the time?

It seems hard to believe that the United States defeated the Confederacy without there being some Confederate militants/rebels resisting the outcome of the war. Were there any anti-Union prostests or riots in the following years? How long was this a problem?

And more generally, how do historians explain the influences of and conflict between European immigrant migration groups in the history of all of the Americas, not only North America?

I understand (I think) the basics of Westphalian sovereignty: that the world is divided into nation-states that recognize each other as sovereign over affairs within their own borders and as equal in international affairs. Apparently these principles were established in western Europe beginning with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648; they then spread to the rest of the world.

So, if Westphalian sovereignty replaced earlier ideas, I'm wondering what those earlier ideas were.

[deleted]

Not to knock the other folks. I just think rabbits is more personable and enjoyable. Any chance in bringing him back?

[deleted]

German divisions would only have 24 heavy machine guns in WW1 . What were the reasons behind giving them so few, especially on fronts defended by the Sixth and Seventh army where they knew the French would be attacking?

Books and literature are dear to my heart, and visiting libraries has always been enjoyable. But I would really like to know more about the history of libraries!

• When did the practice of storing written texts become popular?

• Were libraries always public buildings, or were did they only allow certain people?

• When did the practice of sharing fiction become popular? When was the practice of being allowed to take Books home brought in?

• Did any well known historical figures have their own private libraries (were any of them specific or of an interesting nature)?

• What impact did public libraries have on the population in general?

Any other information not covered in my questions is more than welcomed!

And by westerners I mean Americans and citizens of NATO countries.

I'm reading a history of New England, and I'm curious about how the Puritans got their start, but I'm broadly curious about all New World colonies.

Surely there must have been enormous amounts of labor poured into clearing land and erecting structures, while at the same time obtaining enough food to survive. How did this work in the first few years of a settlement? Once self-sufficient from a food standpoint it is easier for me to wrap my head around, but I don't know how they got there.

has any fascist government actually called themselves fascist?

Is the word fascist always used as a pejorative, or has there actually pro fascist governments?

It was a question that sprung into my head while I was reading about the outline of the first Islamic incursions into the Indian subcontinent? I know there were three main religious groups active in India during this time; Buddhism, Jainism, and the Vedic Hinduism (as pointed out by /u/Valmyr5) (I know Hinduism is too monolithic, I suspect that's the case for the other two as well, and the small populations of Christians, and Jews are barely significant for me to consider for this question), but did they cause any sort of religiously inspired warfare?

And, as far as I can tell, it had a whole host of different problems from the get-go, but it still succeeded. Why?

I have often heard the "argument" for the use of the Atomic Bombs in WWII was that 'Operation Downfall' would have cost far more lives. Is this a commonly held belief among historians or is it up for contention?

Upon doing my own research, it's hard to find credible sources as many use emotional arguments to justify/condemn the use of the atomic bombs.

Further questions:

1. To what extent did the threat of invasion by the USSR contribute to Japan's surrender?
2. Were the Atomic weapons purely to bring about Japan's surrender or were they also used to "intimidate" the USSR?
3. Before using the Atomic weapons was there any discussion on whether or not they should be used, or was it certain that they were going to use them?
4. Why two Atomic bombs? Would one have not sufficed?

Kind regards all.

When I went to school (Kentucky), I was basically taught that General Lee was a brilliant leader as well as a brilliant, Christian person in general. He was faced with a tough decision on who to fight for(The Union even asked him to join them!), but he ended up going with the side that his home state of Virginia picked. I was effectively told that Lee was a great American despite him having fought for the Confederacy.

I always just assumed that that was true. But now there was this huge conundrum over at Charlottesville that all started with the possible removal of a statue of General Lee. And now I'm wondering if Lee was actually a bad person. Was he? Was my education utterly borked?

I find it hard to believe that spontoons and halberds were not considered obsolete and still used in this era where muskets dominated the battlefield.

If officers were trained to use these weapons in combat, are there any records of any officers between 1775-83 using them to kill an enemy in combat?

I was well aware of the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic war and Battle of Grunwald, and I began to research the politics of the time out of a combination of interest in both Polish history and religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, a simple Google search revealed some ten conflicts between the Poles and the unfortunate warrior-monks of German origin.

Obviously, each war has a slightly different cause, and it could be easy to simply say that the Teutonic Knights were invaders and the Polish simply fought to repel them, but that is the case of many many conflicts.

A suppose a more accurate question would be: why did the Poles have to spend centuries to fight off these invaders when said invaders themselves were, almost from the beginning, having such debt issues.

From my understanding, it was these wars with the Polish that ended up ruining the Teutonic Knights.