While researching a bit about the usage of bayonets throughout their history, I've found multiple accounts that show that bayonet charges were mostly just used as a last-ditch effort or scare tactic. As far as I can tell, there were never any actual bayonet battles. In the early days, one side would affix bayonets, charge (at the cost of 2 or 3 volleys) and, by all accounts I can find, the opposing side would run or die.

Are there any known fights in history where there were actual bayonet-on-bayonet battles?

How would someone relatively close to the invention of coffee, like say a 14th century North African, take their coffee? How would taste in comparison to a modern day homebrew? Have the beans changed overtime?

I'm under the impression that war used to focus on fighting in heavily populated and fortified cities until the mid 1900's. Since the end of WWII, most wars seem to have been fought in jungles, mountains, and small villages. Why the change?

I've read a fair bit about how the founders of the Qing dynasty essentially created Manchu as an ethnic identity and how they and many of their successors used it to enforce class hierarchies and as a cultural and political tool. However, I haven't read much about how Manchus and the Manchu identity were affected/viewed/treated after the Qing dynasty gave way to the Republic of China. Were Manchus still treated preferentially? Did the emphasis on Manchu vs. Han still exist by the time the Qing dynasty collapsed?

Both in reality, and in what their theoretical place was in the future naziism presumed for germany. Did it differ much from Italy, Spain, or other fascist regime's treatments of historical nobles?

I would love to see some books on this too. Also, a bonus question: Do the Russians have a "Lewis & Clark" admiration for explorers who went through Siberia?

Like, the phenomenon of everything falling towards the ground. What was their secular explanation for falling?

In most texts the creation itself is a little overlooked or we get flash views of cities well after they were made.

While I understand naturally growing cities that are consequences of people coming together, I'm most curious about how a ruler decided a new city will be built and understanding what went into that. For example Alexander built twenty new cities that bore his name, or so I've heard, but what was this process like?

Was an ideal spot pointed out and citizens were given orders to move there? Were there financial incentives? What was usually built first and so on.

If we don't know what the first was, what's the first we know of?

Just really curious how it became the standard for a democracy. I would think the public would rather have more options than two. Thanks for the time.

If so, how have these texts impacted our understanding of the applicable era and civilization?

I know that in China they had invented a repeating crossbow and a crossbow that shoots 2-3 bolts per shot. Why was this not utilized in the rest of the world?

We know hockey was popular enough in New York, Boston, Chicago and Detroit to support NHL teams. But outside of these cities, did professional hockey have much of an American fan base? Were the Stanley Cup playoffs nationally broadcast on TV or radio? Would the average person in, say, Nebraska have any idea who Gordie Howe or Rocket Richard were?

What languages were common in the Maghreb before the Muslim conquests? How did Arabic displace the native languages there and in Syria and Mesopotamia? How long did the process of displacing the native languages last?

It is conventional wisdom (though that does not make it automatically wrong) that children of the wealthy in ancient Rome were tutored by educated Greek slaves.

It makes sense from both the slave's and owner's incentives for the smart and hard-working slave to learn some valuable skill, at the least so he is worth more and has a slightly less difficult life. Maybe this includes some limited literacy, but music? literature? poetry? rhetoric? Even the finer points of grammar? That does not fit.

Where did these slaves who could teach high culture come from? Where are the incentives to give a slave that sort of non-marketable-skill education? How did a large number of Greeks with the trappings of being from the upper class fall into slavery?

Also, if the teacher was a slave and the kid being tutored was free and from a 'good' family, how did discipline work? I'm thinking every culture, on every continent and every century, up until the last ~2 decades, kept to the tradition that 'an idle fool is whipped at school.'

Was it their tribal names, did they have an all encompassing name. I think calling them "Indians" is taking away from their true heritage.