As an amateur naval historian, if modern navies can be faulted for one thing, it's for really pushing the definition of a destroyer.

The US government recently told a retired physicist to delete some passages from his autobiographical book on the history of the the hydrogen bomb. He said "no" and published the book intact. It's an interesting case, and I wrote a blog post with some historical precedents relating to it: "H-bomb headaches".

I am curious to hear about academic historians' thoughts on the "political climate" in academia today and if/how it has impacted them.

I have been hearing a lot recently about academics who feel the need to keep quiet or otherwise censor themselves when discussing certain subjects for fear of reprisals from one interest group or another. I am thinking specifically of Jonathan Chait's article in New York magazine, Not a Very PC Thing to Say, though I have also read several other articles on the issue.

I am not an academic, but I recognize that the study of history is full of very politically and emotionally charged subjects. I am interested in hearing from those in the field on their thoughts on the issue. Is it a serious problem? Is it noticeable in field of history specifically? Or is it mostly overblown or misrepresented by the media? Are there any other major issues within academia that aren't getting attention like this?

I asked this question before but did not get an answer. I will try it again here.

I am interested in the difference in reaction (in Europe) between the execution of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. How did Europe feel about the execution of Charles? Was it as strong as for Louis?

Complete this sequence:

• The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (Mahan, 1890)

• The Influence of Air Power Upon History (Boyne, 2003)

• The Influence of Cyber Power Upon History (?, ?)

• The Influence of ________ Upon History (?, ?)

Has anybody ever seen anything on the psychological effect of the threat of everyday violence in historical times? In particular, it seems to be fairly common in heavily stratified societies that the elite have the essential right to inflict arbitrary violence on those outside their class--I'm thinking of the archetypal example of the young Italian nobleman who goes out looking for fights. Not to say that commoners lived their lives in constant fear, but when an aristocrat walked down the street there was at least the threat.

Do any students, teaching assistants, or professors have any tips for how to conduct exam review sessions for an intro level college history class? I have one coming up in a few days and would like to hear some thoughts. I've tried two different ways thus far: discussion-oriented and straight lecture. For the discussion, I asked students to come prepared with questions but none of them did, so it was a very awkward hour. For the second session I assumed that the students just wanted me to feed them the answers, so I just tried to condense 5 weeks of lecture material into 1 hour. As you can imagine, it too wasn't very effective.

For those who have led or been a part of an exam review session for history courses, what methods do you think work best? As a sidenote, their exams are only multiple choice.

Can someone describe the state of histrography on the civil war?

Also how accurate is this as a description of it: http://journalofthecivilwarera.com/forum-the-future-of-civil-war-era-studies/

What are some good biographies of Genghis Khan? I'm just an interested casual reader, so it doesn't need to be rigorously academic (though I'd obviously prefer it to be correct, and things that cater to casual readers so often miss that part!). Obviously, it'd be cool to learn about the legacy of his empire as well, but I'm most interested in his own life (I know many histories of the Mongolians focus a lot on his descendants, who I am sure were equally important).

I know I'm a little late to the party but I was wondering if anyone can answer some questions that I have?: Could someone please explain what was going on in Russia between 1891-1952? Specifically I'm interested in knowing anything about the Tsars & their demise, Lenin, the various revolutions that took place, Rasputin, his relationship with the Tsars & why historians think he was a main cause of Tsarist Russia? I've heard of Orlando Figes' Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 is that any good in answering the questions I have?

What led to Mussolini's creation of fascism/or use of fascism in Italy? What did Italy do before fascism to cement the path it eventually went down? Between 1943-1945 what made Mussolini's colleagues turn on him?

What does Herodotus's Histories & Sallust's Histories tell us about how Greeks & Romans viewed each other, themselves, the same events & how has this influenced modern historians ideas about the Greco-Roman world?

Thanks so much for any help received! :)