Reading through Ulysess S Grant's "Personal Memoirs" he often goes into detail about the importance of logistics in regards to troop movement, avoiding disease etc. Obviously in the end he got it right, or close enough, but were there any examples during the war of the exact opposite happening?

I'm working on a writing project concerned with ancient Greece and I would like to have a better general understanding of what daily life would be like for people at all levels of society: common meals, entertainment, social customs, work schedules, what parties were like, etc. I'm looking for reading material that would be better for a beginner on the subject. I've seen lots of questions recently on subjects of this type and you all gave some really interesting answers! Thanks!

Or, to make this question a little more interesting...who is considered to be the first ever university professor?

Was tennis strictly a sport for the aristocracy, or did it cross social classes?

The original wording says "Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion". It refers to the federal state. Now, I'm asking if any of the early states had state religions. I know they had official languages.

My Humanities class (when talking about Samurai) brought up feudalism in Japan. I've been vaguely aware of a feudal period in Japan for some time now, but I've never really thought much into it. Going over it again brought up the question, just how much was Japan's feudalism like Europe's?

Obvious ways like advances in science and medicine notwithstanding.

I am curious about the role of Photography, namely daguerreotypes as well as heliography, tintypes, ambrotypes etc in documenting archaeological exploration (take your pick - South America, Egypt, Italy) at the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th. I was hoping someone could help me answer: *How was photography used (i.e. what kind of items were photographed)? *Was the use purely documentary or were there attempts to make fine art photographs? *How were these photographs then used or disseminated in Europe? *did photography replace sketch artists and lithographers on these explorations? If anyone has any idea at all, or would like to help get the ball rolling, please jump right in!

I'm a Turk. Growing up I've always considered us Turks to be White. On application forms I've always identified as such and I know many fellow Turks do. It's not hard to see why if you are familiar with Turkey, we're a mostly light skinned people of various tones (light eyes and light hair is normal to see) but with some darker individuals as well. In looks and diversity we are not too different from our neighbours the Greeks and other European Mediterranean.

What is the historical basis for Turks being seen as a dark people? I notice it a lot. For instance I've shown friends of varying ethnicities pictures of my family and celebrity Turks, and they're often shocked at the number of Turks that "look white". To me they look Turkish. I guess the fact that I'm personally olive skinned with dark curly hair throws them off as well, they probably assume other Turks look like I do (my Sister on the other hand is white, straight light brown hair, gray eyes, she says people are shocked when she tells them she's Muslim).

Another anecdote is when a blonde cousin of mine went on a school trip to Poland. She said people would often stare at her walking around with her schoolmates, presumably because they thought she was Polish. And yet another is an Uncle who used to be a sailor on trade ships. He says that when they went to South Africa during the Apartheid era that he and his crewmen were treated as Whites.

But even looking at historical depictions of Turks we're thrown in with Moors, Saracens and pictorially representations have usually made us look like people from the Middle East in our looks, and I don't mean clothing which I am aware was similar to our Muslim neighbours. But this is not how I (and other Turks) self-identify us to be and looking at us it's clear as well.

I'm well aware that the original Turks from Central Asia were likely similar in looks to East Asians, so I don't want any answers pointing that out.

My own guesses to this question is that our Muslim identity trumps our looks. In other words most Muslims in the world are not similar to Europeans in looks, so us Turks are just stereotyped along for the ride. Another theory I have is that the large number of Turkish Kurds (who are on average darker and less white looking than ethnic Turks) distorts the issue as well.

What is the expert historian's answer?

Did they have an understanding of immunity?

While I understand that the games is supposed to be apolitical, the practical reality isn't so simple. Nevertheless, while watching the opening ceremonies of the Sochi games last week, I was impressed that for over 100 years, nations from around the world have gathered in peace (perhaps Munich would be an exception) for an exhibition of sport and athleticism.

So I wondered, in a macro-historic sense, is this 100 year run proof that we are living in a period of unprecedented peace despite the occurrence of 2 world wars, and innumerable smaller conflicts? Have there been other periods where nations involved in physical and political conflict have gathered together for some other sort of celebration or endeavor?

Bonus call for rampant speculation: Do you foresee the games continuing into perpetuity or could something, say terrorism, bring an abrupt halt to what I believe to be one of the greatest international celebrations in history?