Today, Navajo Code Talkers are considered American heroes. How did the Navajo people respond to being drafted into a country's military that they were not technically a part of?

Specifically the 1st century BCR

Initial soldiers in WWI still believed in the classical concept of a hero, like Achilles. Is it immediately after WWI that this concept got challenged? Did this concept survive WWII in any way? Did Hitler or other contemporary leaders also invoke this feeling in their speeches?

Finally, just wanted to quote Dante here:

Io non Enea, io non Paulo sono.

Obviously the most well known example of this would be the molotov-ribbentrop pact, but were there others like it? were they honoured even after war broke out between the respective countries?

I've heard that in the 1800s that Republicans were more progressive and that Democrats were conservative and that somewhere along the line, they switched to what we know as the modern parties today. How, when, and why?

As far as I am aware, slavery was not officially outlawed in Europe until after the Renaissance; rather, it was either officially legal or had no official status throughout the Middle Ages, and that between the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, the practice of slavery simply melted away.

On the flip side, slavery of any variety is extremely illegal in most modern countries, and yet there is a trade in "human trafficking." This practice is not historical but I'm giving it as an example of how illegal slave trade can exist.

My point is that official legality is clearly not the be all end all of slavery, and there are other factors--economic? Social? Race-related? National identity related?--that impact the actual practice of slavery. Are there any historical examples of slavery practice ramping up or melting down despite constant legal status that could help clarify this situation?

Are there records of anyone finding what they thought to be a "witch's spell book" or anything of that nature? If not, how did this stereotype arise?

-Did it depend on the rank? How were the contracts set up? How were the years determined? Were they negotiable?

As a French, I've been exposed since childhood to the official propaganda about how our "Force de Frappe" protected us from the Warsaw pact.

I'll be curious to know if our nuclear arsenal was taken seriously by the USSR, and how it was perceived by the US.

Were we effectively capable to inflict sufficient damage to the USSR to have an impact on their plans regarding western Europe?

I'll be interested about official/public reactions at the time and more confidential reports made public after the fall of the USSR.

I know Hindenburg decides to run for a second term in order to prevent Hitler becoming president, but why does he then turn around and appoint him chancellor?

Unitarian and Universalist beliefs are quite different from some more traditional Christian beliefs. How did the more traditional people in New England react to these movements during their introduction and rise? I've never heard anything about this topic, really, but I imagine there must have been some tension, at least.

I know about the chunky wooden lances used for competition which were designed to splinter on an opponents shield with an impact, but what were combat lances like?

Were they made of harder wood? Once you had got your first hit could you use it again, or would it be stuck in the body of the guy you just killed? Would it break ideally when it struck? If not, why wouldn't the force of hitting a static target pull me from my horse?

Appearance wise, would the lances have been painted in livery like the colorful competition lances, or were they more functional? Would I have 'my lance' like I may own a sword, or were they disposable like arrows?

I eagerly await some lance expert's input!