I live in San Francisco and have read much on the building of the streets, the street grids, and the naming. I am familiar with Robert Moses and his parkways and streets in New York City.

But I grew up in Fulton, MI, in Kalamazoo County. There, all the rural streets are in a perfect 1x1 square grid. This is actually true for most counties in MI, and they all line up as well.

How did these street grids come to be? What is the history of creating "roads" out in farm country?

My Great-Uncle (Despite many issues I have with him) likes to share information on our family history. On the Fourth he decided to run a question of "Blue or Grey" on an ancestor who was in the civil war in an 'Tennessee' regiment.

Most guessed grey but apparently he was blue. So I wonder if what he says is true and people from the seceding states did run to the Northern military?

During WWII, American soldiers were known to call German soldiers "Krauts" and Japanese soldiers "Japs" or "Nips". Did the Germans and Japanese have derogatory names for the Americans? What were they and what are their translations (i.e. What do they mean?)

Why?

I'm reading A Failed Empire by V. Zubok, and the various domestic and foreign policy mistakes made by Gorbachev just leave me shaking my head. As just one example, Gorbachev dithers while East Germany dissolves, engaging in philosophical platitudes in lieu of extracting security concessions (e.g. an promises over NATO eastward expansion) in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet troops. I'm talking about political performance here, leaving aside questions of morality.

The thing is, though, this guy made it to the top post in the Politburo, so he must have had some cunning, political talent, and analytical ability to get there, surely? Did the Soviet system just happen to choose a bad leader? And if so, how come the rest of the Soviet leadership stuck with him until the bitter end?

Since the byzantines inherited much of the roman culture one would expect the art to have sustained the realistic depictions of known ancient artwork.

It seems like a much stronger force was somehow vanquished by a small and poor African kingdom with a weak military.

How?

why are they so different?

what actually happened?

What was being taught in schools?

what kind of things were being pushed by the government? I.E I know they put a huge emphasis on physical fitness, what other kind of positive things did they push for?

what kind of art/Music/movies were being made?

Were topics like religion and spirituality shunned?

In particular, would a spear be a valid option for a knight to use once plate mail has become the norm?

My family possess a copy of the Times from 1815, for when the Duke of Wellington and the Prussians were successful with defeating Napoléon at the Battle of Waterloo.

I've known about it for a while, but finally thought it was time to read it not too long ago. Rhetoric in the writing of the 'Declaration of the Duke of Orleane (sic). First Prince of the Blood of France' was rather interesting. Where Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans tells the French people that those (these 'others') who connect him to guilty wishes and perfidious insinuations are there to deceive and mislead the Frenchmen, pushing them to choose another master. Legitimacy being the sole guarantee of peace in France and that he then addresses himself 'to none but a few misled men. Become yourselves again, and proclaim yourselves faithful subjects of Louis XVIII'.

Anyway, elsewhere in it you have the despatches from the Duke of Wellington and letters from Downing Street, and whenever Napoléon is mentioned, he is referred to as 'Buonaparte', i.e. a Corsican name and not French.

The overall question is:

• Was this a way to portray to the people that Napoléon was not a legitimate person to be related to France, but instead an outsider coming to disrupt the peace?

Since by the refusal of referring to him in French, surely this brings us to the inference that his connection to France is unjustifiable.

• Is there any further evidence from contemporary sources which supports this opposition to call Napoléon by his French name, whether English, French, Prussian or others? Or are there (m)any which show the contrary, even if it was opposing him?

Basically the title. I read that the U.S. bought Alaska from the Russians, why did the Russians only get as far into North America as Alaska?

I've been chipping away at Shirer's tome on Nazi Germany as bedside reading. I'm just a few hundred pages in, but I'm curious how well it's held up over time. Does it posit noteworthy theories or opinions that are simply debunked now? How do you guys recommend I approach reading it? I chose it because it's historically significant in itself, and I appreciate the ambitiousness of its scope.

Not looking for something ALL about the battles and conflicts, mostly just how a Royal Navy, French Republic/Empire, Spanish, etc. (but mostly Royal Navy) ship operated day in and day out. Like, what positions were there and what were the components of the ship. I want to know every detail. I know the basics (played a few games, read Hornblower, watched Master and Commander, etc.), but the age of sail (the Napoleonic era in particular) has always been so important to me, I just want to jump in and soak it all in. I'm asking for suggestions on books because I doubt this information can be summarized, but if it can, by the grace of god, I'll be extremely happy.