Are there any interesting/informative books about graffiti in medieval Europe (preferably England, though any country is fine), or Ancient Rome?

Is it common at all for historians to know several languages?

Do historians usually know the languages which are relevant for their field of study?

Is it even necessary at this point or can you find English translations for most sources?

If ever I get my hands on history books from a maybe a century back, I am surprised by the author's casual use of foreign languages, be they French or Latin. It seemed as though the author even assumed his readers to be multilingual. When did that trend stop?

I don't understand how the President can commit troops and military resources without the consent of Congress. Haven't all past U.S. Presidents gained approval from Congress before carrying out acts of war?

obviously there are words/concepts such as "iphone" and "cyberspace" that didn't exist in the past.

With society becoming more liberal and more in tune with the human condition, is there more emphasize on survival than in any other time in history?

It seemed like a common theme in the 1800's and early 1900's was that men fight until they're killed or victorious and that Generals didn't care much about casualties so as long as they could replace them. Retreat and regrouping were often out of the question and when there was an officer who suggested this to his superior he practically had to beg. A figurative pawn. Your duty is to die for your country.

I'm not sure if it was better or worse in centuries past. I'd love to hear someones opinion.

This question pertains not only to today's ground-breaking moments, but the collection of historical data as well. I would assume in the past, books/memoirs/letters sent between people could paint a picture of what was going on centuries ago. However, due to the vast information on the internet that could potentially skew the facts, do you think that writing the history of today could prove difficult to future historians?

I know that officially slavery in occupied territories was ended in 1862. Was this actually done in that year? Did union soldiers enforce the proclamation? And when the war came to an end, how was the abolition carried out? Did soldiers go plantation to plantation freeing slaves, or were there instances of actual legal slavery lasting into the 1870's? And the biggest question that interests me is how this was carried out in Indian Territory. Were there already federal agents involved in this region that took part? Were there any Indian groups that insisted on maintaining slavery?

I am probably like a lot of others in at first thinking Alexander was an absolute genius to be able to conquer a vast empire.

But recently I wanted to write a novel about the Theban Hegemony and started reading about the period, that is immediately before Alexander. And his magic seems to kind of disappear. Some of what at first seems to be his genius now seem like was already in use around Greek military or came up with by his father. That would still mean he's a good learner, but still.

So how good, really, was he?

Oh and what books should I read for my research? I have The Theban Hegemony 371-362, and Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon

So this question was inspired by the comicbook series The Manhattan Projects which is based on the science fictional possibilities of alternate Manhattan Projects but it got me wondering if there were other things that the American government was funding during the second world war that seemed as theoretical back then as splitting an atom?

I have recently heard about this supposed Khazarian conversion to Judaism and it's quite fascinating. I would love to know more!

I'm doing a speech about Religious Persecution in the Middle-East commenting on the social standing of Shia Muslims in Predominantly Sunni Societies. Any comments would help thank you, currently I'm going on the assumption that Sunni Muslims came out on top but cannot find any evidence or clarification. So help is much appreciated.

Jack

Is there any correspondence indicating a particular point in time that an Allied general (or leader) was pretty sure of overall victory? Or, perhaps, what was the earliest Allied military/political action that appeared to anticipate a victorious outcome?

If relevant, were the leaders in the U.S. sure of it before those in the U.K.? Or the other way around?

Possible events that come to mind as having enough power to make them believe that victory was inevitable:

-U.S. entering the war (could it have been this early?) -The initial successes of Operation Overlord -Winning the Battle of the Bulge -VE-day

If anyone knows of some essays explaining the reasoning behind this please post them in the comments.