Europeans developed immunities to certain diseases and then gave them to the Native Americans, why didn't Europeans contract diseases that the Natives developed immunities to?

I know everything about how power sharing collapsed back then but I don't know why Unionists objected to it.

My professor mentioned this the other day and reading some of the threads posted yesterday reminded me to see what /r/askhistorians thinks.

I've always assumed the Crusades were a result of Urban responding to a Byzantine plea for assistance, but clearly it is not as clear cut as I previously believed.

I apologise if this has been asked before, but it seems to be that the ERE is closer to the Huns than the WRE was. Is it because WRE was in a weakened position and was easier to fight?

How did the QWERTY keyboard become the primary keyboard over the "supposedly" (as I never learned to use it) Dvorak keyboard? Was it simply a matter of being first on the field or was there more use of the Dvorak keyboard but the QWERTY won in the end?

We're seeing an incredibly diverse set of international conflicts, with just this morning saying combat troops from Russia entering Ukrane, US bombing syria, etc. Some have called this the start of WWIII, though I don't know enough to make that call.

In the current events leading up to WWI, obviously no one called it "world war" - my understanding that at the time and shortly after people called it "The Great War". And then in the initiation of the conflict of what we now called WWII, surely no one was calling a "world war" either.

So when did I and II get linked, and they both get called World War? Was it during WWII, or after? Was it a specific text or article that called them out that way?

Thank you.

Hey I was just wondering what some of your recommendations were for books on military history. The specific topic does not really matter. I was just wondering what some of your favorites were. Thanks!

I'm comparing the extent to which Cicero and/or his ideals were present within Catullus' works - from what I understand, Cicero himself never directly addresses Catullus, despite the pair sharing mutual friends. Thanks!

To the extent that it was the former: what made the Paraguayans so willing to sacrifice themselves in a hopeless war against such terrible odds?

To the extent that it was the latter: what made the allies so bloodthirsty in their conduct of the war?

If you go back in time you will find that you have a lot of ancestors, 2 for one generation back, 4 for 2 generations back, 8 for 3 generations back and so on. Obviously this isn't accurate anymore if you go back like 30 generations because it would mean you have 2^30 or about 1.07 billion ancestors, which is more than the total human population back then. So how much time approximately do you have to go back to find a common ancestor for the majority of our planets human population?

To get down to it, was there a chance Germany would have won without the US intervening?

I guess I'm asking "how necessary was the Civil War?"

Once the first Southern states seceded, why did the Union go on the offensive?

I'm approaching this question from the "War of Northern Aggression" perspective here. Is there a good reason why the Union went to war rather than just let the South do it's thing via secession and the Confederacy.

Needless to say, I know about the idealistic reasons. But those usually aren't the REAL reason why nations go to war.

In the West we are taught that life in post-war East Germany (the German Democratic Republic or DDR) was terrible. But in my reading for one of my history modules this year, I've come across a phenomenon known as 'Ostalgie' which wonders whether there are things people should be remembering from the GDR. This has led to television shows in the past decade or so bringing up times when life in the GDR was supposedly better than today.

So I was wondering, what was life in the GDR really like? Quite obviously it's unlikely to have been entirely good or entirely bad, but is there any substantial historical justification to this Ostalgie phenomenon?

I've been cast as Second Lieutenant Ralph Clark in the play Our Country's Good, a play about the founding of Australia, which frequently uses excerpts from a play of the period, The Recruiting Officer. There is mention men kissing in the military in this play-within-the-play and my own research has confirmed that this did happen. However, I'm meant to perform this type of kiss on another actor and have been unable to find any information on the procedure of it, through research of contemporary etiquette, various searches of the terms in question on Google and asking my dramaturge for any information they've been able to find. I've found plenty of helpful information for developing the character but I'm really struggling with this bit of direction: is there any help you can offer me, historians of reddit?