My understanding is that these relationships were seen as educational, between a mentor and a student, and that when the younger partner came of age, any previous sexual dimension to the relationship ceased.

From my 21st century perspective, I have a hard time imagining being in a, say, five year sexual relationship with someone, and then suddenly stopping just because I got a ritual haircut. (I know this is an extreme simplification, but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around it.)

Do we have any primary sources that address the emotions involved in the transition from mentor/mentee, lover/beloved to equal men? Would an erastes have been sad to lose his eromenos, or proud that he had become a man? Would a wakashu have felt lonely after his nenja stopped writing love letters?

Soviet forces are often criticized for not supporting the Warsaw uprising in WW2 for political reasons (to eliminate Polish rivals etc.) However I have also read a conflicting viewpoint that states the Red Army was not in a position to cross the Vistula.

So, what is the consensus today among historians? Did the soviets stop short of Warsaw for political or military reasons? And what are the evidence for both sides?

Unless of course it did. Africa is a big place no doubt, and I'm sure at least some tribes used it. Was it perhaps not effective on the type of game being hunted?

Reading about the Cultural Revolution and Mao's role in it, I never really grasped his real motivation and ultimate plan. It seemed like he was constantly flip flopping when it came to certain issues (like who to back and who to accuse). At first I thought he just wanted to oust Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping from power, while regaining power himself, but after achieving those goals his focus kind of shifted (and Mao even recalled Deng Xiaoping later on).

Basically:

1. Did the Cultural Revolution go according to plan at first, but then went out of control? (But then, why didn't he just stop it? It certainly seemed like he had the power to do so and even nearly did it...until he poured oil into the fire again himself.)
2. Did it go according to plan from start to finish? (Seems unlikely considering he was backing the Red Guards one day and the PLA the other; same with the ultra leftists and conservatives.)
3. Did it fail from the beginning? (Also seems unlikely as he did achieve the above mentioned goals)
4. There was no plan at all and Mao just wanted to stir things up for the sake of stirring things up? (Maybe he was bored? A little bit out of touch? Completely crazy? Doesn't seem plausible either.)

Lately I've heard commentators compare the ISIS crisis in Iraq to what happened in Vietnam. I'm not interested in making connections to two distinct points in history, so please ignore the Iraq comparison (and not just because modern topics violate this subreddit's rules), I'm just interested in getting a fuller understanding of what happened then without worrying about whether it's similar/different to other points in history.

Was it to strike fear or was it to decrease their enemies wealth?

I recently learned that the Tainos also played a ball game ("batey"), and so I wondered in which extent these two worlds knew each other. I'm also interested in any interactions between the Caribbean and the rest of their neighbourhood.

For example, after realizing Omaha Beach was the most heavily defended did they consider diverting to another landing zone to lessen casualties? Was not doing so ever considered a mistake?

I'm planning a dissertation on the prohibition era and would like to know some of the main work that has been written on the era as a starting point.

They seem to have been better than anyone else in Europe at the time. Why is that?

I'm curious, as the idea of Italy being a Great Power is odd to me.

Historically, Old World cultures revolved heavily around horses and their different uses as transportation, beasts-of-burden, and in war. Since the New World didn't naturally have horses, how did North American native societies and cultures grow differently? Were there other animals used similarly to horses? And to what degree did most natives actually incorporate the horse into their cultures?

During world War two, was there ever a country (or group) that was fighting against a country but was allied (not just not in a war) with that countries allie? I vaugly remember maybe something like that in Yugoslavia but I'm not sure.

What went wrong on the supply and logistical side of the campaign?

Why did the Grand Armee's numbers dwindle so much early in the campaign?

Why did Napoleon/his subordinates fail to trap/destroy/bring to battle the Russian armies?

What's the truth in Napoleon refusing to commit the guard at Borodino, would it likely have broken the Russian army?