Did they attempt to and fail, or did they simply not see the point? I'm asking this because from further research into the Mongols, I saw that their empire's size was quite similar in distribution to Alexander's, yet neither held India.

Please excuse the flippant title. I figured it was an easily digestible way for me to initiate this discussion.

I am currently compiling a list of "must read historians" for a non-medievalist friend, and it occurred to me that other medievalists must have some opinions about the "classic" authors of the field. In other words, historians whose works have influenced the field (either of medieval history or of any measure of academia*) in some meaningful or significant way.

I'm thinking of historians like Charles Homer Haskins, Henri Pirenne, Georges Duby, Joseph Strayer, and so on.

* As it happens, medievalists have had some significant influence on greater academia, which is why I thought this question would appeal to the general /r/askhistorians community, as well as to those who are interested in the Middle Ages. For instance Marc Bloch, the French historian who was famously executed by the Nazis, helped found the Annales journal, which later developed into an ideological school.

I was wondering what are the origins of the pairing of chili and cornbread? Who or what people were the first to pair these two foods?

Who actually started the extermination program? Who knew what was going to happen and could have stopped it in its beginning? What individuals bear the most responsibility for the creation and continuation of the purge of undesirables?

Napoleon and Hitler most likely had better organised armies, and though the Mongols were more northern in nature (so more accustomed to such weather) how did they manage to survive when Napoleon and Hitler couldn't?

I am a 6th grade teacher. We are starting our unit on Rome and I would really like to explain the concept of Libertas to them. My overall question is "How did the idea of Libertas affect the development of Rome?" I am briefly going to discuss the Kings of Rome, The Republic (covering the Punic Wars), and the early Empire (mostly the Julio-Claudians... because they're so fun and show how absolute power corrupts absolutely).

I understand that it is the state of not being controlled by another (personal liberty) and that it distinguished between a slave and a citizen; but I know there must be more to it than that. Any other tidbits for me? Any help is greatly appreciated.

I made some Mesopotamian bread from a recipe I found online and it tastes a bit bland. I put in a bit of sumac when I was making it (evidently not enough) and I was wondering, would they have used sumac? What other spices would they have used?

So I was talking to a friend about (what little I know of) historical combat, and I noted how there is no place that I've seen any use of shields in Japanese military applications. This then leads me to several questions:

1 Would they have formation combat like in Europe?

2 How would the formations or surrounding units (skirmishers and archers, etc.) work, and would this be very different from Contemporary armies in other regions?

3 what is the main logic of the combat throughout this period? Was the focus on elite troop combat (samurai duels are the obvious example)?

Any insight into Japanese military doctrine and combat at this time would be very appreciated as well.

It seemed to be a minor rising power at the time.

It's hard to believe that they just convinced an entire nation that the Jews were to blame without any supporting arguments or some basis in fact. How did the Nazis justify this argument?

So I'm reading War and Peace and in the fourth volume, part 2 and sixth chapter. the Russian army are sneaking up on the french. It say's "the horses were kept from neighing" how exactly was this done?

You know, like funny cartoons carved into stones or a political cartoon sketched on ancient paper. Not something serious, but something that shows people thousands of years ago had personality. I don't really know anything about history (I'm a chemist... ha...) so I'm not sure if it's ridiculous to ask for some kind of hand drawn sketch. Please forgive my ignorance.

I posted this in /r/askscience a bit ago but nobody answered. If this isn't the right place to ask this, please let me know and I'll resubmit it elsewhere.

During a discussion in English class today, many people reinforced the idea that slavery was rooted and surrounded with hatred towards blacks. Is this a legitimate claim to make?

Specifically what led to Irish Red Ale becoming a style all its own? Did it develop from the type of ingredients used or was it based out of necessity from the import of highly taxed English ingredients? Both the Irish and Scottish developed similar beer styles as a result of English laws regulating which ingredients could and could not be used in the making of beer and high taxes forced them to be used sparingly. Could the lack of ingredients from high taxes have been the source for Irish Red Ale becoming a style?

Was this something that happened at a social level or a political level? I'm really curious as to what the mechanisms that needed to be put in place for this change to occur. Any insight would be really appreciated.

I understand that the US was afraid of Chinese intervention in the war but wouldn't the US be able to claim that the NVA attacking the US and SVA forces in the South as an outright declaration of war?

Not looking for anything very specific in terms of price or price for a specific round, just rough numbers and how affordable ammunition was for the average person.