When is it first taught to students? What causes are emphasized?

This morning I was reading letters exchanged between generals Grant and Lee just prior to Lee's surrender. In one letter Lee offers to meet Grant between the picket lines of the two armies at 10am the next day to discuss terms. This got me thinking about the kind of arrangements that must go into having such large opposing armies so close to each other for such large periods of time. So a few specific questions...

• Did they raid each other while marching or while camped?
• What sort of logistics or tactics would go into defending an army while marching or camped?
• Was there any sort of etiquette or mutual understandings that discouraged certain types of attacks?

Thank you!

Also is there any historical link between the two? I know Ragnarok is not technically an apocalypse but a ending and continuation of a story, where the christian apocalypse focuses on the rebirth of the worthy. Is Snorri the only author who touches on it?

Or was absolutely all traffic to and from the Spanish territories in the New World by way of Seville?

So I read that the reason, or maybe just one of the reasons, Alexander II of Russia sold the US Alaska was because he feared the British Empire would take it from him in a future war. Was this a rational fear? Did the British empire ever think to take Russian Alaska?

I'm sorry if this was asked before. I looked for a bit to try and find an answer here but didn't.

In hindsight it seems to have led to more problems in stead of less. Plus all the violence seems to have been more severe after independence than before.

-edit The reason I've asked this question by the way is that I am travelling through India at the moment and all religious groups, by the looks of it, have a more or less cordial relationship with each other.

A century plus earlier, this was the same region trying to secede from the country and, now I'd argue, it's one of the most patriotic regions of the USA.

If you accept the premise, how did this happen and what were the pivotal decades/ events that lead to it?

The industrial revolution and mechanization happened in between, but were there subtler improvements in technical ability to extract more gold out of the same sample?

I ask because I wonder about mining areas which were let go of in earlier centuries because they were deemed not viable or cost effective, but which had a resurgence in later times.

Were there specific, finer chemical processes that were developed in the intervening time for deriving more gold from rocks or was it all a matter of better machines for digging down to the ore?

French uses Irlande, Hollande and other country names ending in 'lande,' but Angleterre stands out. I've read that it may be because England was at one time a domain of French-Norman nobles and in a union with Northern France in the Middle Ages, but I can't find anything definitive.

(I'll post in another sub if this doesn't produce an answer, but I suspect somebody here might know a thing or two).

***edit -- I speak French; I understand what "Angleterre" and other country names literally mean in French. What I'm asking is why French speakers were content to just use "Islande" for Iceland, "Finlande" for Finland and "Irlande" for Ireland, but decided at some point in history that "Angleterre" was better than "Anglande" or "Englande."

just briefly summarizing it would be great enough.

Maybe not all cultures per-se, but I'm quite the movie nut, I've seen it in Asian movies, obviously western movies and even bollywood movies, they all seem to signify similar things to with similar farewell connotations. How did this come to be?

Hello!

I'm reading Montefioris the young stalin biography right now for a paper I'm writing and too me it seems as if it is not an acceptable book for the discipline.

My translation has no footnotes (don't know if the OG has), the writing style seems straight out of some fanfiction and some of the written stuff seems impossible to know, even with the best of sources.

Normally I'd label it myself from this on, but I saw it cited in some very reputable history books and I am therefore confused.

If somebody could just give me a short yes/ no, I don't need lengthy explanations, it would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

edit: This is what Orlando Figes, who is very respected wrote about it:

"Despite its title, his book is not a biography of Stalin, although the tyrant's sinister presence can be felt on every page. Sebag Montefiore has written something rather more interesting and original -- an intimate account of daily life in Stalin's entourage. (...) Stalin has its minor faults (the footnotes, for example, are inadequate, which is regrettable for a book with so much new material). But its extraordinary revelation of the evil -- the complete amorality -- at the heart of the dictator's court will change the way historians approach the great historical questions about the Stalinist regime." - Orlando Figes, Sunday Telegraph

Also seems ambigious.

What class was the French army primarily made of, who's side did they fight for before, during and after the revolution and why?

Also, how did the military deal with the revolutioners and other countries attacking France? Was the military split on two fronts, or did the other countries attacking distract the military ultimately leading to the citizens being able to take over?