What is the trajectory of the historiography of the early years of the AIDS epidemic and the part played by the US government? In 1987 journalist Randy Shilts published And the Band Played On, which gave a detailed yet barbed account of the growing awareness of the crisis coupled with the overall failure of government to thwart it. This book is a product of its times; in many ways it is part of the history of AIDS activism rather than an impartial account of that mobilization. So has anything changed in how this story is told? I am happy to hear any insights you might be able to share regarding the intersection of Reagan's domestic policy, medical history, and queer history.

I have done some research on World War One and everything I read seems to skim over what the fighting was actually like. How did these troops get each other out of their trenches? How did charges actually work? How safe were the trenches? What were the conditions? How did they keep moral up? What weapons were used? Any info on the fighting and dying in the trenches of World War 1 would be appreciated, it really sparks my interest, thanks.

I understand that European feudalism was generally due to constant invasions (correct me if I'm wrong here), but, seeing as Japan never faced such invasions, why was it so similar to it until the industrial age?

Came across something on tumblr that said after the Allies had defeated Germany, Eisenhower "gruesomely exterminated" 1 million Germans. Checked the FAQ and nothing was there, Google search provided questionable answers. Help me out please?

I also wonder what would've happened if the palaces had indeed been bombed? I also wonder why they'd bomb the factories and NOT the power plants. Why not the power plants first, then the factories? No power plants = slower to rebuild & recover.

Edit: What "happened" to civilians?

I've heard that originally Jesus wasnt revered as the same as God. And that a messiah was quite different from that. What did churches in the first century teach about Jesus, the Holy Spirit and their oneness or relationship with God the Father?

I'm mostly interested in the last 100 years or so.

Eg daily grooming, trimming, bathing and deodorizing. If I went a week in the Western world today without bathing, friends and family would criticize, and strangers wouldn't be too friendly either. When did these things, like daily or every-other-day showers, become a trend and why?

So within the past couple weeks here on AskHistorians, people have asked why historians say there's no real such thing as feudalism. And from all that I could really find, most of the answers seemed to boil down to "feudalism is wrong and stupid," but not why feudalism is wrong or how it's stupid. It's like feudalism is a strawman built up a long time ago and everyone's saying, "That's not a real person," but they aren't saying how it's not a real person (no skin no bones no mind no organs etc.).

So what I'd like is specific examples of how the popular conception of "feudalism" is wrong. First, define what you would say the popular conception of feudalism is (for some people, king+knights=feudalism, so the right strawman needs to be identified first). Then tell how major medieval kingdoms differed from this popular conception--a common theme I've heard here is "Europe was incredibly diverse, so it's hard to say that there's any one 'feudalism' that defined the region." Tell me how England differs from feudalism, and France, and the Holy Roman Empire (and maybe even the individual states), and Spain. I don't know any major Eastern European medieval kingdoms, so some of those examples might be cool. Thanks!

Was it the shields? Weaker-than-in-the-past Greek armies? Better leadership?

I mean, it was right in the middle of Europe. He could of easily taken it if he wanted.

By more like the Autobahn, I mean similar thickness, subtle turns, subtle inclines/declines, etc.

I'm guessing a major factor was that the project was already expensive and doubling the thickness would raise the costs even more. I'm curious if they had any other reasons than the price tag.

.

This mostly came up because I saw that some of the old British cavalry units became armored cavalry and still serve today. Was service in these units sought after by upper-class people to gain social standing and honour, as well as becoming traditional for some families (or even maintaining tradition from the old cavalry days)? If not, then what caused this discontinuity between cavalry and its modern equivalent?

I just came from watching the game and made myself this question. That's about it.

i'm specifically interested in the US operations, and how the tactics employed may have differed from how the US conducts those types of operations now.