Completely pointless and stupid question, but I've always been curious.

[I asked this yesterday, but did so at the wrong time of day; so, here's a second attempt when everyone in Europe and the Eastern Time Zone is awake.]

Funny that I've never really learned this since World War II aircraft were my very first historical obsession, but there you are. I'm curious about what kinds of problems would be enough to force a plane to turn back: wounded crew, for example, or minor damage? Was leaving the formation a big risk? Would the plane stay at high altitude if they did leave the formation? Assuming they were, say three-quarters of the way to the target, would it perhaps be safer to stay with the group?

Or would they have been mostly concerned with earthly affairs?

I am in a sophomore university class based on African history from 1800 to present. I have to write a 10-12 page research paper on any topic of my choosing during this time period in Africa.

I have looked into topics such as genocide (Rwanda, Darfur and genocide in general), child soldiers, and the impacts of colonialism.

I am struggling to develop a strong thesis on all of the topics I have looked into, as well as finding solid sources, and was hoping to find some help here.

I am definitely open to more topic suggestions.

I've enjoyed several of these 'big scoope' popularized history-books, but some of them also leave me with a feeling of.. one persons attempt to become an icon by trying to explain way to much, ending up not really explaining anything.. I haven't read any of Neil's previous books, but both the title, cover (uk), and the fact that his picture is on the back of the book (with a very civilization-like look) really sends me all the wrong signals. would anyone who's read it care to comment?

OK. This is pretty simple. I'm wondering when did people, and where, did they begin to care about their toe and finger nails? When did people decide to start clipping them consistently and paint them? How'd they paint nails back in the day, as well?

I'm taking a course of Human Geography, and we have been learning possible hearths of Proto-Indo-European. The two most likely, according to my textbook, are Southern Russia/Northern Kazakhstan, or Anatolia. My textbook gave me some evidence as to why Southern Russia may be correct, but none for the other theory. Is there any evidence to back it up or is it just speculation?

I found came across a collection of historical 'newsletters' that were created from 1950-1981 in my local libraries reference section. I began scanning the pages and converting them to text for my historical website on the same topic. My intention is to reproduce the text and lay it out in a modern format including found images as well. I have tried with no success to contact the authors (so far all dead or missing) as well as the publisher (PO Box). This is remarkable information that I feel should be available.

What is the moral way to release this as well as legal?

Personally, I wouldn't want to take credit for any of the work and would reprint as it was originally published, including all authors names. My website is 100% no profit, no products or advertising. Thoughts?

edit - I asked the librarians and the on site historian who just said to track down the publisher and authors.

It is easy to get the impression that a lot of the USA's industries in the 1800s were run predominantly by slaves who were given substandard living conditions, poor food and clothes, and didn't have to be paid. Emancipation must have been a significant and sudden cost on these industries and so changed the way that they ran. Was this the case, and were there repercussions to the rest of the USA and its industries as well?

I often hear about the devastating effects of smallpox and other diseases on native peoples due, in large part, to the fact that the diseases were brand new to the previously isolated (from Europe/Asia) people of America and Australia. Logically, the same lack of immunity to diseases of the natives could impact the Europeans. Did they?

Although part of this question, I suspect, can be resolved in reference to their relatively low numbers and their brief period of control in North Africa before defeat by Justinian's forces, I'd be interested to hear which other factors led them to reject Roman tradition so far as they appear to have done.

My history teacher claims it was when the indian soldiers were forced to rub their guns and ammunition with animal(pig)fat and since they were deeply religious they rebelled. Surely this couldnt have caused such a big conflict?

Were the wives of such men referred to as 'Queen' and 'Princess'? Did this occur in tribes were the leadership succession was hereditary as opposed to elected Chiefs? When did this sort of title stop being in usage? What were the traditions involved with holding such office? (did they have a 'coronation' ceremony or something to 'officiate' their status somehow? Was it any different than the ceremonial for a Chief? Also, was one King more 'supreme' than others?

Would we have any feasible means of defending ourselves? Would we try to outrun them? Do we try to pay them off with our cargo? Are some of my shipmates going to try to betray us to earn the pirates' favor?

Edit: Thanks for all the great responses! Very informative.

Media makes it look like to le that on one hand there were knights training since childhood while on the other hand foot soldiers were little more than peasants recruited on the go and thrown into the fight as cannon fodder. Although I'm aware that longbowmen actually had to train for a long time to fullfill this position, so a subsidiary question would be : is that an exception/ how would you be picked to do this job as opposed to any other ?

The word "Arab" has become synonymous with "Islam", though this is by no means wrong since the religion is a huge part of Arab identity, culture and history.

However, we never really get taught about the history of the Arabs before the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I recall that during the period of war between the Byzantines and the Sassanid Persian Empire, the Byzantines enlisted the help of a kingdom of Christian Arabs, but that's just about all I know.

Could you give me recommendations and books to read about the pre-Islamic history of the Arabs?

By "well-off", I mean the upper classes, senators for example.

It strikes me that the Romans start in a stronger position than Alexander when they first encounter the Persians and should theoretically have been able to carry out a similar invasion plan of replacing the Persian leader with the Emperor/Senate as Alexander did. The Persian Empire in Alexander's time also seems objectively larger and more powerful.Were they unwilling to do so or unable with their more Western ambitions taking up their resources?