How do Greek people refer to the Hellenistic period today? It seems like "Hellenistic" wouldn't make as much sense in Greek, right? Or am I over-thinking this?

I've lived in America my entire life and in school I always learned that there are 7 continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica) but my mother from Italy always argued that there are 5 continents (America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania) she uses the example that there are 5 Olympic rings for each continent which makes sense but I was wondering why there's a difference in different places on earth.

I can't quite wrap my head around how the Roman's could deal with this match up from a hand to hand perspective. Greek style phalanx pikes seemed to have significant reach over the simple Roman gladius'. Aside from running in and impaling themselves on a wall of pikes, I don't see how the Roman formations could have even gotten close enough to Greek troops to cause any damage. Was there some special tactic the Roman's developed to deal with these formations?

We view the 1920s as completely different from the 1960s, and the 1970s as completely different from today. How did this work in say, the 16th century? Was the 1660s seen as completely different time from those in 1680? Or were things fairly stagnant up until the 20th century?

I've been reading a lot of biographies lately, and find they're a great way to learn a bit of history (my history classes in school were pretty bad). I recently finished "Undaunted Courage," which is a biography of Meriwether Lewis, and am currently reading Dorris Kerns Goodwin's book about Roosevelt, Taft and the muckrakers, and I was struck by the yawning gulf between knowing nothing about anything west of the Mississippi at the beginning of the 18th century, and to having everything settled at the beginning of the 19th.

I've obviously heard about "the wild west" in pop culture, but is there a good book or biography that you'd recommend that would give me a sense of that time period?

Ill explain myself; I heard how Hannibal or Scipio "waited" for the other side to assemble their troops. What's the point of this? Wouldn't it be better to attack the other guy while he's organising? Or is this a case of "getting more by licking rather than biting"?
Also, people seemed very eager to go to war back in the day. Wouldn't they have more or less a clear idea of who was going to win before hand, or this is a hindsight trap?

(I have posted this in DebateReligion first but have been advised to put it here. I am subscribed to r/AcademicBiblical but the community on there is very small and I figured you guys might also be able to help).

Hello, I would like to ask anybody who knows about the history and theology pertaining to the existence of the devil in Christianity and specifically how the concept of a malevolent supernatural evil ruling the physical world superseded the portrait of 'Satan' in the Hebrew Bible as a heavenly prosecutor who presented sinners before God to accuse them. I've read much of The Birth of Satan but I am still at a loss to how the Jesus movement in the 1st century CE, from the apostles to the Gospel writers and Paul's Gentile converts, came to believe in an 'evil one' who opposed everything God did and actively fought against the work of the Lord. The idea of the devil is so central to Christianity that one may say that as one must believe in Christ in order to be saved, one must also believe in (the existence of) the devil as an evil being in order for the entire narrative to make sense. I know some Christians have reinterpreted the devil to be an allegory for personal temptation and shortcomings, but ultimately the New Testament is very clear: the devil is real, the source of everything that is evil, the 'father of lies' and he will eventually be destroyed in the Lake of Fire. This picture seems so contradictory to everything about 'Satan' in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that it defies belief. The amount of projection involved in reconciling the two pictures does little service to Christianity, in my opinion. How many Christians believe that the serpent in Genesis is the devil or a servant of him based on a single vague reference to 'the ancient serpent' in Revelations? The Lucifer/king of Babylon/Satan elision is a similar problem. The amount of reinterpretation involved almost resembles retconning in fictional canons and for me, it presents great difficulty in believing the central tenets of the Bible. Popular folk beliefs that the devil 'rules hell' or will be responsible for torturing sinners himself are rooted in mythology and popular culture and are of course not in line with Christian orthodoxy. But then again, are these popular folk beliefs really that out of tune with the original role of Satan compared to Christian orthodox understanding of him? The 'movie Devil' who torments sinners in hell is at least serving a purpose for God in punishing the wicked, closer to his original Jewish perceptions than the world-ruler presented in the New Testament. If anyone can shed light on this it will help a lot. How common was belief in the "devil as evil world-ruler" before the ministry of Jesus? Had Second Temple Judaism produced a wider new understanding of 'Satan'? How influential were books like Enoch and the Life of Adam and Eve on the early Christians and the Gospel writers (bigger question I know but if it helps what I'm looking for)? And why didn't this understanding of the devil emerge earlier in the Hebrew Bible, if it is the correct understanding? I am seeking dates, places, books, specifics of who believed what and when. I read the Epistles and the Gospels and they seem to presume prior knowledge of the devil and what he does. Thanks for any and all perspectives

EDIT: Wow, was not expecting this level of a response, thanks everyone!

I suppose my question is did the states that ratified the Constitution feel they could leave the Union if they felt it no longer served their interests? I am thinking of the Nullification Crisis here. Though the Nullification Crisis didn't have anything to do with secession per se, it set a precedent for Southern states to feel as if they had a degree of sovereignty that they could exercise at will against the desires of the federal government. Was this idea of state autonomy a holdover from the times of the Articles of Confederation when they held a great deal of power, or was it brought along later with the Nullification Crisis?

How did "If our foes are noble and great, full of valor, and we defeat them, how great does that make us?" change into demeaning the other team/people/culture?

In the book "Hiroshima" by John Hersey, he tells that no residents remember hearing a noise of an explosion, despite seeing a massive flash of light and being thrown across the room. An explosion that big should have made an unbelievable noise, right?

I'm looking for something from WW2 from the perspective of a Japanese soldier. Specifically something I can read in English.

I'm just wondering why it was deemed to be necessary, didn't they have volunteer police forces? Why would the government decide they wanted to pay for a police force?

I have a big interest in economic history and I'm really curious if there is a one volume work that provides a reasonably detailed look at the economic history of the US Civil War.

I assume most warriors with swords or shields were right handed, but I imagine a left-handed warrior would have a more difficult time during combat. Were there any advantages to being a different handiness that the majority? Or was life generally more difficult?