Not American, but have an interest in its history. I understand that the Papers were designed to influence the adoption of the Constitution. Who were they arguing against; who didn't want to ratify the Constitution?

Question is in the title. Just wondering if ancient beer was carbonated like today's beer? Egyptian beer? Medieval beer? Asian beer?

I'm not talking bards singing epics. I mean full on rehearse song and dance routines with a play as we would recognize them today.

I know they recognized them as abrahamic, but were they viewed as separate like Judaism or corrupted Christians as the author claimed?

Granted that the retreat was significantly hindered by weather, but does weather really play that much of a factor when it comes to his initial defeat at Moscow?

If winter isn't the primary reason for Napoleon's failed invasion, what would be the most accurate reason for defeat?

How often were trebuchets and catapults used in a battle during the Middle Ages? Would they have been used only for sieges or also for normal land battles?

I'm referring to the views of both western countries and in Russia/USSR

Across my online studies I've come across several vague references to the 1970s Katanga Infanticide, in which the Japanese government arranged the killing or secret abortion of hundreds of children born to Congolese mothers and Japanese miner fathers.

Why is this atrocity not more well-known, if it happened so recently? Has the Japanese government ever admitted to or in any way acknowledged these killings or accusations? What was the contemporary reaction to the Infanticide?

As the only references to this event are an unsourced wikipedia page and some very biased blogs, I feel compelled to ask: did the Katanga Infanticide actually happen?

How far ahead would their scouting reach? Was it different for separate cultures? How hard was it for armies to position themselves advantageously before battle?

Many governments have a top level government depart devoted to culture and sometimes sports. Why did the US never develop such a department?

Basically, I am interested in knowing the chopstick "Mason-Dixon" line, if you will.

I was given a prompt for my APUSH summer assignment regarding choosing one of the three colonial regions (New England Colonies, Middle Colonies, and Southern Colonies) to keep under the crowns rule and the other two to be given self rule. I have a hard time getting essays started and was wondering if anyone would have any insight to this prompt of either regions that are easy to defend as keeping or as giving self rule. I AM NOT asking someone to write my essay for me by any means.

Why did no concrete rules of succession exist in the Roman, and later Byzantine, empires? I understand early in the Roman empire this would be to maintain the illusion of a republic, but why was the lack of rules continued?