I once posted this in /r/communism101 in hopes of help and I was suggested to come visit the realm of the reddit historians.
So yes, basically, what I'm searching for is the most unbiased biography possible of Joseph Stalin. I know it's hard given he is a very controversial figure but still. I don't want 1000 pages of neither idolation nor unbased hatred. Would any of you kind people know of any such biography?

I was just reading about the Ramaveda, and I wanted to know if there are any experts on Hinduism who might speak to this. Is there any scholarship regarding the possibility that Ravana represents a displaced head deity of an earlier religion on the Indian sub-continent? In the way the Yahweh displaced Baal and Lilith, who became demons in Judaism, or the way that Zeus displaced the Titans (theorized to possibly represent a pre-Mycenean, pre-Doric religion?)

And maybe have descriptions of each little thing.

He claims that Rome could no longer stand against it's barbarian enemies because many Romans were German at that point. Were there other factors in Rome's fall?

Did they come from a sort of middle class, or could any field worker join a free company?

My last "British' descendant that I am aware of was listed as a Warden of Portsmouth Dockyard in 1830 ish. What would a job like that entail? Was it a paperwork sort of position or scrubbing the bottom of the ships?

I've always assumed that names like Ramesses and Akhenaten and Nefertiti were "special" names for royalty - you wouldn't hear two Egyptian labourers saying "And did you hear about Ramesses from across the river? He's only gone and got that Nefertiti from round the house of reeds way knocked up", for instance.

Then I realised I may well be talking nonsense, given that most western kings, queens etc have names that are ordinary, normal names for people like Edward, Henry, Louis, Charles and Otto.

As the vote for Scottish independence is close, I was wanting to get a better historical aspect on the situation. I understand that this subreddit is not about recent events and am not looking for a discussion on the current situation, rather the conditions of the original union.

In high school history class, we learned about The Alamo and the subsequent Texan Independence. However, there's a gap between the time Texas became a Republic, and its eventual inclusion into the United States. Can someone fill me in on the gap? How did the Republic of Texas do militarily, economically, and politically? I phrased my title the way I did because a wikipedia search told me that Texas was not doing well during the years when it was trying to gain American statehood.

I'd assume it has a great deal to do with rifles and semiautomatics?

Sorry if this doesn't make to much sense I'll try to explain it. Since I'm Canadian and while I was in high school I mostly learned about WWI. One big thing we learned was when the allies and Germans supposedly ended up having soccer matches and trading small gifts and singing Christmas songs during Christmas one year. Another thing is how the allies got "good" treatment when they got captured. Are there recorded instances of this kind of stuff happening in WWII? To me it seems like in WWI soldiers on both sides had more respect for each other then in the second world war.

I've read stories that in communist countries, at the time there was no unemployment. I guess there would be other problems, but how people were managed ?

Were people just forced to work ? How could you become an engineer ? How did they let people get better jobs ?