I've always heard and believed that while we don't know exactly who wrote them, and that they contain some facts, there is a sort of consensus between scholars that the traditional views on authorship are wrong, yet when I told someone this in a debate (granted it was at a church) they said I needed to read more about the topic and most scholars believe the traditional views.

So I'd like to know what are the main views by historians on there authorship? (Obviously there will be many)

Edit: Also is there any truth in the claim of 2/3 of the Roman Empire were slaves? It just seems a really high number, but I don't know much about the Roman Empire so it could be fact for all I know.

I tutor a Chinese girl who's about to move to America for high school. Is there an American history book comparable to "This is China: the first 5000 years"?

For example, could East Germans call West Germans on the phone?

What are the known justifications for not following up the first two successful attack waves to finish off the base facilities?

Was a third wave (or more) part of the initial plan?

What was the inspiration for the mini sub attack? Was it seriously expected to be successful? Were there objections by Yamamoto or senior staff to the submarine component?

These questions were inspired by watching Tora Tora Tora so, how well does the film reflect reality and the known attitudes and opinions of those portrayed?

Babies cause people to wake up even after having the baby for a long time.

Nomadic tribes lived in such as was that a baby crying would be easily heard by most of the tribe.

People have lots of babies.

Did they wake up all of the time? If so, how did that affect their society?

I realize this is a difficult question to answer, but perhaps there are fragments of written attestations that have survived thus far. Thanks!

I searched this sub for answers, but the ones I found on the topic were relatively short or focusing on the inexperienced command structure after the purge.

I had an argument with another redditor on the question if Stalin was actually preparing an attack on Germany (he proclaimed, Stalin was planning one). He argued, that the soviet army wasn't good at defending because they were actually preparing for an attack, told me to look at some maps, the USSR was already manufacturing a lot of war material and after I told him, the red army wasn't ready to attack anything because they were lacking trained and experienced officers, he just declared the red army would have been ready if Stalin declared it so. (If anyone is interested in the discourse, it was one of my recent posts.)

I am not looking to get "payback" or anything, but as this isn't my focus in history and he actually got me thinking. How valid is it, that Stalin planned an attack? Maybe not around the years of '39 to '41, but maybe after?

Sorry if you feel, this has been answered before, but consulting the FAQ and searching didn't really answer my question, as the main argument by most (the purge) would be negated if you just looked at Stalin as more or less not caring about his officers being really prepared.

This is a pretty simple question but I haven't been able to find sources online that help me. Were people in East Germany during the divide allowed to Immigrate to Russia for good? I understand that some people were allowed to visit other communist countries, but I'm wondering if people were allowed to move to Russia permanently? (Oh and legally of course.)

I am an AP World student in 10th grade and I felt like my teachers didn't go as in depth into the Enlightenment revolutions, such as the American and French revolutions, as much as I would have enjoyed. I remember hearing in class that the American Revolution was what set off many of the revolutions, and especially the French Revolution, that occurred in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I hope you guys could shed some light on the subject for me on how influenced the French Revolution was by the American Revolution. (Side Request: if any of you know any great books or novels on the American and French revolutions I would be extremely happy if you shared.) Thanks.

The Just, The Merciful etc. Why are they not in use anymore? Because of more name diversity?

To any music historian or anyone who knows a lot about it,

I am interested in reading a great biography of the beloved composer. I already know quite a bit about him, but have never been able to get my hands on a biography of him. I know there's a whole field of study out there surrounding his works and his life. However, most of the books I've seen are simply works of music history written with an eye mainly towards the forms and composition of his works, with an obligatory nod toward the events of his life. I was wondering if there are any works out there that are not one or the other, but rather a synthesis of the two? I know that you cannot fully appreciate the man without looking at the content of his compositions, but you also lose quite a bit of the beauty of understanding his compositions without knowing the man behind them, too. Thanks for any and all suggestions!

I was reading that Stalin initially supported Israel and the USSR was one of the first nations to recognize it. In fact, the USSR apparently sold a goodly amount of weapons and equipment to the Israelis, and Golda Mier visited the USSR.

Then, in 1949, Stalin changed his mind and decided to oppose Israel. Why? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Soviets to continue to court the Israelis, many of whom were Russians or Eastern Europeans?

And did France just give it to them randomly?

I'm wondering how those who fared best insulated themselves from the effects, and if anyone was able to actually improve their circumstance similar to our recent so-called Great Recession.

There was a segment on either the Discovery or History channel (can't remember which, sorry) about the mass amount of copper used during this time, and that they believed most, if not all, came from America. I am wondering if this is true or not.

Also, if they new about the New World before Columbus, why didn't they colonize it ahead of time?

I love this subreddit and have a question for you fine folks that I couldn't find in the FAQ or search results.

I was surprised to learn that the War of the First Coalition was started by France declaring war on Austria. I was under the impression that the monarchies were the aggressors and trying to nip the revolutionary sentiment in the bud before it spread to their territories. I don't know of any good sources on this period (usually they either focus on the revolution, itself, or Napoleon). If Wikipedia is to be believed, the French army performed very poorly at the outset. If the military was in such bad shape, what motivated France to be the aggressor? What did they hope to accomplish?

Thanks for your time and help!

They should be comprehensive and full of details, without being dry and boring.

It would be great if they also contained plenty of personal accounts, reports, anecdotes etc from people (especially soldiers) who were involved in the fighting rather than just describing battle after battle without including the perspective of people who were actually there.