Ok so my dads birthday is comming up soon and I want to get him 2 books. First is one on the Civil War but more specifically one about the South Seceding for merely economic reasons... if that makes sense. Thats what hes really into atm. The second is anything interesting about his other favorite topic the Vietnam War. ANY suggestions would be great! Thanks so much.

particularly rich american city dwellers. it's for a play

This is kind of a crackpot question. My apologies for asking it. Still, I believe it remains a few steps above, say, The History Channel, so I'm feeling gutsy enough to ask.

I've often been told that mildly alcoholic beverages were more common than "pure" water in pre-modern times, largely because the water wasn't really all that "pure", and even a small amount of alcohol helped kill germs. I've heard this about Greece, Rome, medieval Europe, and even (e.g.) early colonial America. (My history teacher said that Jamestown had a 90%+ mortality rate from dysentery until they started drinking cider.)

I do also remember hearing that these alcoholic drinks were often rather dilute by modern standards. (I recall something about Roman drinking parties involving the selection of an arbiter bibendi who would decide how many parts of water to mix with the wine—though maybe that was rather syrupy wine concentrate.)

So would it be fair to say that the average Roman in (say) the Republican era was drinking enough wine that, by modern standards, their BAC would be meaningfully above 0 for a good part of the day? This struck me as a rather outlandish idea, but then again, it occurred to me that many modern people routinely consume caffeine in significant quantities. The crackpot-meter starts pinging when I continue further along this avenue, but perhaps one could even talk about an alcohol society versus a stimulant society in a broad thematic way.

Sorry if this has been posted before, feel free to delete, and if so, could someone please direct me to previous answers?

Although Patton has been somewhat lionized by Americans (largely as a result of the 1970 film), a cursory look at his record paints a somewhat confusing picture. Tenacious, determined, cunning: sure. But he also seemed to be somewhat naive politically, and appeared to go after headlines rather than the broader scope big picture in terms of his strategic choices (at times, anyway). I'd be interested in what a specialist in WWII history has to say on the subject. Was Patton a better overall general than, say, Rommel, Bradley, Zhukov, or Montgomery (just to throw out a few contemporaries)? Is it even fair to compare them?

EDIT - This discussion has exceeded my wildest expectations. Thanks to all!

I am not able to find a concrete answer to this question. Few historians say it was because of the Famine and the repeal of Corn Laws while others say it has to do something with the political situation at that time. What are your thoughts?

I would like to know is whether House of Wisdom in Bagdad was unique or were there any other equivalent institutions of learning during that period, either within the Abbasid Caliphate or in the neighbouring empires such as Byzantium, Mali, or the Indian kingdoms?

I've watched a documentary on the Angolan Civil War and read through the old AskHistorians threads. One aspect that wasn't really covered is how Cuba was logistically able to send tens of thousands of men and material thousands of miles to Angola. Could some ships get through the blockade or did the Cubans have to rely entirely on aircraft? How expensive would it be to move everything by air?

as stated in the title i had a history test in which it was asked what are the two phases of ww2 and describe one

We have twenty one, thirty one... why don't we have ten one, and instead have 'eleven?'

Or did it? I know this is a broad question

Hello /r/Askhistorians, As the title suggests, I am interested to know about the role of decadence in Roman society, particularly in Roman politics.