The narrator in an episode of Samurai Champloo goes off on a bit of a tangent regarding the Japanese people during the Edo period being more open about their sexuality. Particularly, he mentions that homosexual activity was not only accepted, but considered a "nobler pursuit" that heterosexual ventures, saying it was similar to classical Greece in that way.

Were the Edo Japanese really as open and free with their sexuality as claimed?

What about with regards to homosexuality?

Was homosexuality really considered a "nobler pursuit" in Edo Japan and Classical Greece?

Scotland, Italy, Denmark, etc. Is there any evidence Shakespeare went to those places?

I have a couple questions about the israeli palestinian conflict. i am most definitely missing something here...

To my understanding the israelis were forced out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank (due to british mandate? (this is the part I'm unsure about)). After that, the palestinians came and took the refuged israelites' land and claimed it as there own, which is the basic reason as to why the conflict is still ongoing. Not trying to go deep into current details.

My questions are:

1. Why were the israelis run out of their homeland t begin with? (my suspected answer - british mandates of the west bank and gaza strip)

2. Where did the palestinians come from and why did they take the refugees land? (my suspected answer - i have none)

And in case anyone was wondering about my stance on the issue,

Zionists and orthodox jews are grudge holding and act violently and radically under their belief of the protection of the Torah and don't seem to understand 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Palestinians are wrong in that they took someone else's land like..finders keepers...wtf?

Please someone fill in my blank spaces :(

A good book on the subject

Book:The Unmaking of Israel

Author:Gershom Gorenberg

Length (kind of a deal breaker question for me): 250+ pages

He sees both sides of the story and recognizes that neither side is technically wrong or right either. He makes very good arguments for both sides, however i believe he's a more big picture thinker (not sure i haven't finished it yet!) Very interesting read! Book source: My Jewish studies class

So there are plenty of entertainment media derived narratives and portrayals of WWII bombing raids. I combed through the previous questions and while some answered small parts, I'm looking for a more comprehensive overview.

The best way for me to communicate my inquiry would be to explain my understanding of a typical raid, and then have the inconsistencies and errors highlighted and pointed out, I hope that's alright.

To my understanding:

-Allied planners would gather intelligence about targets of importance from numerous sources, including reports from ground forces, intelligence agents, etc.

-A plan would be drawn up, including primary and secondary targets, and orders dispatched to multiple units, at multiple air bases.

-On the given day, weather reports over the targets would be gathered via intelligence networks seizing local reports.

-Multiple units embark at different times, bombers and escorts.

-These units would meet at predesignated rallying points.

-Several planes would be designated bomb leaders they would be responsible for navigating, and other planes in their unit would fly in formation.

-From the other side, air partols or radar or even ground forces, would detect incoming allied aircraft and report locations, heading and speed as best they could, or intelligence would get a hold of allied plans.

-Military intel would determine possible targets and send out an alert, anti aircraft crews would be put on alert, and fighter units dispatched from multiple bases.

-Units would break at given points to engage separate targets, sometimes in multiple cities.

-Enemy fixed wing planes would attack bomber formations head on to limit the amount of fire taken (I don't know about British aircraft, but American forces had more rear firing guns than forward, until the B-17G) They would then attempt to strip off the escorts with scouts and while drawn away other fighter units would dive from above at high speed making multiple passes at the bombers.

-The axis fighters would disengage before ground fire would be encountered.

-Bombers would enter the flak field, escorts would drop back to avoid casualties.

-Bomber pilots switch control of the aircraft to bombardiers they fly straight and level until bomb lead had drawn a bead on the target, bomb lead releases payload at given mark. Other bombers release their payloads, and set course for their landing destination. Fighters rejoin the group and escort to given point over friendly territory.

I guess my questions from start to finish would be:

-How were strategic targets determined?

-How were orders distributed?

-How were rallying point determined?

-Is the concept of bomb leaders accurate, or would all planes navigate individually? Was there doctrine for other planes/crews to be designated to take over if the lead bomber were disabled, or would this have been improvised?

-How much warning in terms of time could be expected from time of detection of a raid and the actual units being in range of ground anti-air units?

-Would ground anti-air crews be on alert at all times in locations with high value targets, or would they be called upon by incident?

-How accurate is it to state that enemy fighters would disengage before their friendly ground fire was encountered

-How accurate is it to state that bombers did not take evasive action once bombardiers were in control, and if this was a doctrine, how strictly was is obeyed?

-Was it typical for planners to have units land from where they took off, or was it common to plan for units to land at airfields other than those they took off from to be repaired/refueled and then have them return to where they were stationed?

-At what point would fighter escorts break from the group (presuming the raid occurred after the incorporation of long range escorts).

-How typical was it for a raid to target multiple cities?

-How typical was it for a raid to target a single city?

I understand that the topic is nuanced and a bit esoteric, and that due to differences in doctrine in British, American, German and Italian militaries, as well as the varied aircraft used, that generalizations won't apply to every raid.

As a final question, related to that, would it be fair to state that due to these inconsistencies and the varied targets attacked that each raid was completely unique with no two being truly comparable?

My apologies if my inquiries are exhaustive, I was really hoping to have a comprehensive overview of the topic.

Let me know if I've violated any rules, I don't think that I did, but I'm happy to make changes necessary to make this post compliant.

So if the French Revolution started because 98% of the people were poor and starving, and eventually they began to war against neighboring nations/empires in order to improve the situation, did that plan work? I have super elementary knowledge of the events that took place, so please forgive me if my question is ignorant. I guess part of me just wonders why the people let Napoleon do the things he did, even though it seems to have gone against what the revolution stood for.

Where would I get my supply from?

Would I have to pay any taxes, or abide by any regulations?

Were there any major changes in life before and after 476?

I know it is full of great stories, but why is it that Greek is the main focus in (at least American) mythology in literature classes? For example, why are we not taught Chinese/Brazilian/or even Nigerian mythology? Surely they all have stories that could go toe to toe with most Greek stories right?

As mentioned in the title. Can't really find an answer to what made the Romans chose a different city to rule the Empire from.

It seems that being the guy in front or side ranks of a column or line were significantly more dangerous than being the one in the middle so its probably something a soldier normaly would try to avoid. So how did a soldier ended up in such position? Was there a set place in formation for each soldier / subunit? Was he just slow/unlucky while unit where getting into formation? Was he placed there as punishment. Are there any historical records mentioning soldiers trying to weasel out from it?

The Thirty Year's War led to the loss of a third of Germany's population, the Paraguay War led by some estimates to the complete decimation of Paraguay's population by 90%. How were such large man-made losses of life possible before the invention of weapons of mass destruction?

Hi /r/AskHistorians. I am a college history student taking a course called "Historical Practices," that seeks to teach students how to, for all intents and purposes, do history.

Our grade is entirely based on our research paper, which I've decided I want to write on the factors that contributed to Alexander the Great being able to conquer the area he did.

Right now we are in the process of looking for primary sources. However, my professor told me that given my time period is ancient, and that primary sources might be limited, other sources (like Plutarch) could potentially be allowed, provided they help answer my question.

So I've spent quite a bit of time scouring for sources on the Achaemid Dynasty in Persia, and Egypt, but my efforts have been fruitless.

So my question for you, /r/AskHistorians, is whether or not any of you know where I'd be able to find such sources in translation? I feel that I can do a decent amount of digging and find at least a few things that would help me on Alexander's side, however with Egypt and the Middle East, I'm unsure of even where to begin.

With that said, I appreciate any insight you all can offer.

I'm hoping to start a business writing custom biographies/memoirs. I imagine they will mostly be of older people and I think it would be helpful for me to get a more precise understanding of what technologies were in use when, what music people were listening to, what the social customs were at different points during the last century. Anybody have any favourite books on the topic? A history of ordinary people so to speak, rather than geopolitics.

I'm not a historian, but I did study philosophy, so I'm not afraid of academic tomes.

Update: I'm in Canada, so Canadian or American histories would be best. I will definitely look at "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945" from the recommended books list.