My Great Grandmother was born in Germany in 1908 and immigrated to the U.S. around 1923. On her death bed she mentioned in a fit of panic for my mother, who she mistook for my grandmother, to "hide the children from the Russians". While I understand that a fear of Communists existed in Germany during the period of her life in Germany, I am wondering if there were any reasons other than Russians being associated with Communism, that led to this feeling of animosity amongst Germans.

From my understanding, terms such as "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are applied centuries later to describe the Roman Empire in the East. However, it is also understood that the Byzantines considered themselves the continuation of the Roman Empire. But what do they call themselves after Diocletian's Division where the west still exists? Just Roman Empire even after the division of administration? Do they have anything that distinguish themselves from the west?

Here is a brief overview of what I've done so far, if you need anything clarified just let me know, I have used Ian Worthington who argues he doesn't deserve the title of the Great, such as the amount lives it cost at the siege at Tyre, his drunken rage which resulted in him killing a close friend, I also used Arrian who further illustrates his Alexander's military greatness, N.G.L Hammond who argues Alexander deserves the tittle because of his charisma and his charm, his sympathy and empathy towards his solider and his love to his family, Plutarch, who glories Alexander and I have finally used the Alexander Romance to illustrate how the mythical Alexander has been blurred with the "real" Alexander.

is there any particular states that have stopped all ownership of guns?

I am referring to legal and registered guns.

I understand that the Civil War was essentially fought over slave ownership and that slavery represented the cornerstone of the Southern economy, but surely their leaders would've realised that sooner or later it would have to be abolished?

Were there any ideas or suggestions that slavery could eventually be abolished had they turned out successful in the war?

Or perhaps the question would be better phrased: When did having sex publicly stop being de rigueur?

How much did "the gods/religion" have to do with day to day life in say....ancient Greece? Did superstition and dogma control much of their behavior? Or was it like today's culture in that we have churches and other places and symbols of worship everywhere but we have a sort of a "go or don't go" kind of approach? Also, was it prominent through all levels of status from wealthy to poor?

In current middle-east societies, cousin-to-cousin marriage is not considered incest, and is completely acceptable.

This seems to be the norm for many ancient societies, from Europe to Asia.

At what point in history did this shift take place? and is there any reason for western society taking this position?

Everyone (on reddit) is familiar with the use of ravens to carry messages across Westeros. In the Harry Potter novels, owls are used quite reliably to carry post. Carrier pigeons were used in the boring Real World even as recently as WWI.

When did this become being commonplace? How reliable were they? What technology/schools of thought were required? How realistic is it to have birds used to carry messages in archaic settings such as in Game of Thrones? Were certain birds more adapt at this task than others?

From my time studying the Ottoman Empire there is a definitive line tracing through the history of the empire to see the decline and destabilization of the crumbling empire. It is generally accepted that World War I did not prove to be the Ottoman's undoing, but rather it was just the catalyst to finally dismantle the failed empire. At the same time the Austrohungarian empire fell. Is this because the empire was headed for dissolution before World War I or could the empire have survived via internal reformation?

I know the basic principles of the war but forgot most and I want to get my hands on some really interesting literature that is enjoyable/yet informative on the war. What do you suggest?

Compared to most other revolutions from the 18th to 20th century, the American Revolution seems to have gone awfully smooth. Most interestingly, while it was a political revolution it didn't seem to have an ultraviolent social component that seems to go along with just about every modern revolutionary movement.

Looking at other modern revolutionary movements, in France, Russia, China, Latin America, and other places, revolutions don't seem to end after a regime change. They are almost always accompanied by wholesale violence against some segment of society, maybe a class, or an ethnicity, a religion etc. The aftermath of modern revolutions usually takes decades to play out and seem to go through extreme reactionary and extreme radical phases before the dust settles.

On the other hand, after the American Revolutionary War, there seems to have been no serious violence and no major disruption of the existing social order. Why was there no radical social movements in the wake of the revolution, against, for example, landed aristocrats, or the church, or gender or race hierarchies, or really any kind of major social upheaval?

Does china's dynastic history shed any light in explaining Mao's hold of power over China. I ask this question because even after the horrors of the cultural revolution and his subsequent death, Mao was still revered almost like a godlike figure unlike many other authoritarian rulers. And I was wondering if chinese history before the communist revolution helps in understanding that.

Apparently the meat was cooked with the ground shell inside it, or something like that. Is there any truth to this? And who decided it was really a good thing?

I work right now in South Korea and a coworker told me that the South Koreans were extremely feared by the Vietnamese because they refused to take prisoners and were incredibly tough. How much of that is true? What was South Korea's involvement in the war? What happened back home when the war ended?

I have wondered about this for some time... If you look at some of the movies filmed in the 1960's they are downright beautiful, with clarity and great color/light/exposure etc.

Then, suddenly, when you watch any typical 80's movie, it looks terrible by comparison--not sharp, dull colors, etc.

This seems to be true of live TV or video as well, because some of the shows from the 50's and 60's had that nice clear black and white "video-ish" look to them (something with the frame rate perhaps?), whereas the sitcoms from the 80's are blurry/grainy and just overall seem to be inferior in quality.

Has anyone else noticed this, or have an explanation?

The British would dominate the seas during the French Revolution only a couple decades later (I'm looking at you, Lord Nelson), and as far as I'm aware, they did pretty good against the French during the Seven Years War as well. So, why were they for the most part (or at least when it counted) unable to defeat admirals like d'Estaing and de Grasse?