I am currently finding it difficult to find a good informative answer on this, with the whole terrorist circlejerk going on. I am wrote a paper on Islam recently and am now quite interested in the religion and want to hear information from all sides in order to properly understand it.

I know that they would tax Jews and Christians, but I haven't found out much about what they did with other religions.

The incubation period for Smallpox is about 12 days. Columbus' first journey took 29 days. So this gives the travelers time to develop the disease mid-voyage. Did they truly not know they were sick and develop symptoms on the ship? If so, were there any measures taken to reduce exposure to others? Or were these men asymptomatic due to surviving the disease for generations and passing along traits that kept the virus contagious but otherwise dormant in their bodies?

I ask because astronauts go through intense physicals etc. It would seem odd that anyone would want to board a ship with a sick person, especially since diseases back in the 15th century were probably nothing to laugh about. Sharing a boat with a sick person for a month would probably not be ideal.

in 1940 during the battle of Britain, the Allies used radar in secret to great effect on the luftwaffe. At what point did the Germans learn we were using it? They were developing stealth technology at the end of the war so they must have learned at some point.

Given both the size of the Soviet armed forces and the intensity of the fighting (as well as the staggering scale of the atrocities that were committed in Eastern Europe) did the Soviet medical system have processes to identify and possibly treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD) amongst its demobilized soldiers in the years following WWII ?

I know that in the West after the war, a common treatment paradigm was through the institutional model (asylums and hospital), and that it put severe strain on the mental health system - did the Soviets institutionalize as well? Did they have support groups? Different treatment options? Or would it be undiagnosed for political/cultural reasons?

From my understanding, Buddhism was at one point the State religion of the Maurya dynasty(which controlled a large part of the Indian subcontinent) and then declined quite precipitously. What was the reasons for this and the Hindu revival?

I know. It's a pretty naive question. History is so multifaceted it would be hard to contain even the main events of a single war in a few volumes...and here I am, asking for the whole damned world to be stuffed in a couple attractive books.

But still I ask.

Barring that, is there just a book on history -anything from antiquity on up- that blows your hair back? I just like to learn.

Thanks to any and all.

By the way, I'm a teacher, so where you direct my attention will impact the lives of others as well. I love to toss in anecdotes from this and that. Cheers!

I remember spending a few days in some of my old archaeology courses going over archaeological ethics and having some in depth discussions, but those discussions mainly surrounded issues pertaining to the relocation of items from their place of origin. What do we think of the ethics behind reconstruction? Particularly for nationalistic purposes? (looks pointedly at Mussolini's botched reconstruction of the Ara Pacis)

I'm aware of how fraught with speculation questions about the Sea Peoples are. That said, I'm under the impression there's a good deal of circumstantial evidence that suggests the Philistines were decendents of displaced Greeks.

I've read quite a bit about how the Industrial Revolution facilitated the continued growth (economically, militarily and imperially) of the British Empire in the 19th century. Considering how significant steam power was for the Industrial Revolution I wanted to ask what specific aspects of the British Empire and its economy greatly benefitted from the design of these new steam engines?

Who instated the ban and did all parties relevant agree to the terms?

Much like the title says, I am curious as to how the war in Vietnam affected the role and usage of helicopters in warfare.

I have read the arguments that the entry of the Soviet Union against Japan was a major or the major reason for their surrender. My question is not about their reasons, but about the actual capability of the Red Army to invade the Home Islands. I understand that they could have easily pushed Japan entirely out of China, but it seems to me the Soviets had little to no experience with amphibious warfare, and given the massive scale of planning and technology needed for D-Day and Operation Downfall, would the Soviets have actually been able to bring their army to bear on the Home Islands?

Before we knew anything about how they work how did people view their spooky behaviour? How have magnets been utilised across different cultures throughout history?

I'm sorry if the title isn't phrased very well. I searched the subreddit/FAQ and didn't find exactly what I was looking for. I've never been very good at history, and I am taking a US history 1945-present class. We have a project, and I chose my topic to be the antiwar movement in the US during the Vietnam War.

My original idea was to focus on how the movement influenced the US government and the decisions they made regarding the war (or more broadly, their decisions on how to handle the antiwar movement, or just how the movement effected the US government). I've been doing a lot of research, and I found a lot of articles mentioning "The protests worried Johnson", etc., but I'm not finding anything very concrete. Not knowing much about the topic, I was hoping the protests had a big impact and helped end our involvement, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Did the antiwar movement in the US have any effect on the US government, specifically on decisions made by the government regarding the war/policy in Vietnam? What was the political influence of the antiwar movement? I guess this is more an opinion question, but did the movement change/accomplish anything? If you can, please provide sources so I can cite them and read further. Any suggestions of where to look would also be appreciated, thank you!

Am I correct about this aspect of early Roman History?

Early on, only Romans who owned land were allowed into the Legions (mostly small farmers) and did so voluntarily with little or no pay.

They fought for months or years for their Senate and Consuls, and had to leave their own farms unattended to gain glory and land for the Roman Nobles.

After coming back from war, they find their farms confiscated by the very Roman Nobles they fought for (unpaid debts or taxes), and are forced from their own land. Their own land is then populated with the slaves captured in the war they just fought in.

I mean that sounds infuriatingly unjust.

How come the Roman Soldiers didn't rebel from this treatment?

How did the Roman Legionaries, stand to see some of their brothers have their lands seized by the Nobility?

Serious question. I'm not a Holocaust denier. Please enlighten me.

EDIT: Thanks so much for all your thoughtful answers. Thanks to those who provided sources and those who backed up their claims with good arguments. This is a great community.