I say troops because I don't know of any rulers captaining ships, but if that existed please enlighten me.

For the longest time, my school had one history teacher, who as a little eccentric in her choice of topics. Here's how our course progression went:

• Grade 9: Ancient Egypt.
• Grade 10: Byzantium.
• Grade 11: Renaissance France.
• Grade 12: Europe in the post-WWI period.

To say the least, it's an oddly specific and not very thorough curriculum, with a conspicuous lack of a few minor topics like Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire. I did plenty of reading on the side, which has given me a decent understanding of a few topics, so I know as much as any reasonably informed person about the world since 1918.

My chief interest has always been US history, so I've read Team of Rivals, Shelby Foote's The Civil War, David McCullough's 1776, and some other books. Currently I'm working my way through Robert A Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson. However, I've long known there are massive gaps in my knowledge. Since these encompass more than 2000 years of human history (everything from Ancient Greece to the fall of Rome, anything from then to 1900 that didn't involve France, the US civil war, or Byzantium), I feel it just might be a good idea to fill them.

I looked at the reading lists on this subreddit, but didn't quite find what I was looking for - maybe I missed it. I was wondering what the historians on Reddit would consider the most authoritative and thorough sources on a few topics. I'm looking for something similar to Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy or Robert Caro's LBJ biography.

Now, the topics:

• Ancient Greece
• Rome
• The Crusades
• Byzantium (Learned very little about it in class, and what I did learn I've mostly forgotten)
• Islamic history over the past
• The US revolution (1776 was a nice start, but I didn't attend a US school, so my ignorance of the subject is vast).
• The US between 1776 and 1861 and/or between 1865 and 1960. Any in-depth exploration of a topic (like The Bully Pulpit) or detailed survey would probably help me.
• World War II: European theater. I've got a few Anthony Beevor books I'm going to read, but would like a better overview
• World War II: Pacific theater.

I suspect there's plenty I'm missing altogether (if I've missed a crucial chapter of history, feel free to let me know in the comments) but feel those topics would be a good start. What books would you folks suggest?

I'm a Catholic by religion and it states in the Ten Commandments that one must not use the name of the lord God in vain. I would like to know when people started saying phrases such as those aforementioned, also what made people think it was normal to say them and if the Catholic Church still deems it as a sin.

I read somewhere that through DNA testing on the maternal side Ashkenazi Jews have strong connections to northern and eastern Europe, but on the paternal side they have strong connections to the middle East.

So yeah can someone explain this once and for all? :)

I understand that muskets and early firearms replaced bows in mass formations early on for logistical reasons. For many nations they were easier to train and supply. But at what point in firearms development did the gun become mightier than the bow in one on one combat with no concern for logisitics? I ask because I was just watching The Revenant.

Easy grab points, difficult to use on horseback anywhere with trees, etc.

Did anything noticeable or drastic change in working conditions before the industrial revolution?

Is it because there just weren't any huge events in those 169 years worth noting?

Judging by modern standards of how a free and democratic election should look like, how would those in the Weimar Republic compare?

Assuming I'm your typical factory worker without any direct party affiliation, can I count on the the elections being secret? What kind of influences would I see myself exposed to? Would I be pressured by force into voting in a certain direction?

What was the reality like for women?

I've listened to the audiobook a couple of times and I greatly enjoy it, I haven't done any structured history studying since my A-levels but I am always interested in learning more and concerned about accuracy!

If this is the wrong place to ask then I apologise, I've never posted here before.

From what I understand Caucasus historically comprised the border between Europe and Asia and must have been very ethnically diverse. So why is the Caucasian considered the eponymous white man?

In the context of WW1, what does it mean to call Russia backwards? What are they doing differently compared to other countries that go "forward"?

I understand statements like these cannot be proven as fact, but is there any semblance of truth that a single infantry regiment had a reputation like this?

Follow up: During other time periods, are there any single infantry units that could have reasonable stake to this claim?

So we know that several different ancient and very early medieval empires used war elephants in combat. While they were sometimes beaten, they were generally pretty effective in combat, especially against troops who had never seen them before.

My question is, why did the use of elephants die out? The last known battle i could find on them was when the Sassanians were defeated by the Muslims at Al-Qadisiyyah.

This isn't just constrained to Victorian England, by the way -- it's just the time and place that first came to mind.

And yes, I know, corsets are not the cause. But if women were fainting often enough that things like smelling salts were well-known and widely available, then why?

The only thing I was able to find was the "Why We Fight" series of WWII reels.

Please be detailed.