I read somewhere that in ancient Greece, being homosexual was not only socially acceptable, but also encouraged so that the bond between soldiers would be stronger, and thus raised morale while in combat because you would fight not only for yourself but also for your partner.

Is this true? If so, how did the general feelings towards gay change so drastically? From strengthening relations, stronger bonds, etc, to today's standard, where they have to fight for rights?

I've read that scholars believe the reason the Gospels differ is because the authors were writing for different audiences and the actual facts were not very important to them (and I've heard this with much of the old testament also). Why did they not care about the facts? And what did they tend to focus on if not the true history of events?

Given the significance of sallying forth with their fleet to attack and engage the British, it seems like that would be the obvious point in time to have the U-Boats prowling the area to harass the British fleet, disrupt formations or logistics, etc.

I know Adam Smith wrote his "Wealth of Nations", but it seems unclear whether it was a prescription that was followed or a description of what was occurring anyway.

Were people just trying to do whatever made the most money, resulting in capitalism as we understand it, or was capitalism actually an end goal of someone in power?

In American schooling, Communist leaders were obviously painted as being evil. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were undisputed monsters, but Ho Chi Minh doesn't seem to be a figure that fits that build. Other than being a Communist opponent of the United States, was he guilty of other crimes that historians can objectively recognize as being flagrant abuses of power? Was there any evidence to project what kind of head of state he would have been if he was alive when the North took over the county?

I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to post this question!

I am an intern doing research at a historic Iron Works village in the north east of the US, and am trying to find information on the family of the Manager/Overseer of the village.

The problem is, on the federal census of 1840 it states that there is 31 total people under his household. At this point in 1840 the family would consist of 8 people (manager, wife, 4 sons, 2 daughters). It also lists that there is 1 free black female, and 1 free black male. The census says that 7 people in the household work in manufacturing and trade.

I was wondering if any of you know what could account for so many people under his household? Under "Free White Males" there are 20 listed ranging from under 5 years to 50 years. Under "Free White Females" there are 9 listed, ages ranging from under 5 to 50.

As the manager of the company, would indentured servants/apprentices be counted under his household? Why not the owner of the factory? Could there be unknown family living with them? Could this just be an error by the enumerator?

Thanks!

I remember watching Goodbye Lenin, where the father defects while on a business trip and the wife faces a difficult interview where she's accused of knowing his plans. She convinces them of her ignorance, but clearly is afraid of what could happen otherwise. What would have been the potential consequences if she'd been less than convincing?

She wondered if people had better vision then, or if glasses of some sort were a thing, or people just had to deal.

If there were an item in my family's possession or something I've found on my land, would a governing body be able to confiscate it if I don't volunteer it?

And conversely, could a museum decide not to give access to certain objects to historians who want to study them?

Hi. I'm not American, and I'm pretty unfamiliar with the subject at hand, so I'm sorry if this is an ignorant question!

To clarify, the point of my question is not to ask, 'was manifest destiny supported by biblical teachings?' or anything along those lines. That would be more a theological question than historical one.

Rather, I want to know whether proponents of manifest destiny during the 19th century supported Manifest Destiny because they felt God had willed it. Compare, for example, manifest destiny to the Jewish notion of a 'promised land', which is obviously highly religious. How similar/dissimilar are they? Is that a very stupid comparison to make?

Thanks in advance to anyone who might take the time to answer!

I know that British, Russian, Polish, and American politicians were at least tangentially aware of the existence of these camps, and leadership at the highest level also had an idea of it (if not more). But what would the average non-general (enlisted, non-com's, officers) have known about the Nazi extermination program at the time of the first liberations? Were the soldiers that liberated these camps privy to any rumors, scuttlebutt, or more concerning the labor, concentration, or death camps? Do we have any accounts from these soldiers that shed light on how much they knew prior to liberating these camps?

I have read that Genghis means "Ocean."

If not true, what does it mean?

And if true, does it mean something like 'from one ocean to the next' or along the lines of 'khan of the great grass ocean'?

I want to make a diorama of this scene into minecraft, but I can't identify all of the vehicles on my own. From what wikipedia told me there are Tank landing ships with barrage balloons and army halftracks. But there is other things besides that and don't LSTs carry Sherman tanks? I was hoping someone had some knowledge on what everything is like the ships and the ground vehicles, they can make a simple diagram pointing out what is what.

Idk who exactly said it, but it was in reference to Islam and Mohammed: The earliest roots of a religion like Islam or Christianity are often very different to what later comes after it. Something about Mohammed being a succesful conqueror and rather than him establishing a religion, it was his succesors who were really responsible for making it a religion.

Anyway I am especially interested in who and when turned Jesus from a Messiah to god's son, which was then constructed into the trinity.

Who was responsible for that view? How did other christians or outsiders react to it? Why was this more popular than arguably the more logical position of a Messiah?

And besides the divinity of christ what other things "changed" before ultimatively the council of nicea? (or if you know of a better cut off point, feel free to talk about that)