I fully understand that this is a very specific question, but I got curious while watching Lockpicking Lawyer because I don't think he's picked a medieval cell door lock.

So as we all know the 'africa had slaves too' retort comes up very often but I think I'm correct in saying that the way America and Africa treated their slaves VERY differently.

In Africa slaves were mostly poor, indentured servants, criminals, conquered people, they could earn their freedom, their children weren't born in to slavery, they weren't separated from their families, could learn to read/write and for the most part taken care of by their owners.

In America, slaves were seen as nothing more than property, separated from their families, castrated, raped, had teeth/skin stolen, breeded, couldn't read/write, their children were born slaves, couldn't earn freedom and it didn't matter who you were you were a slave and were overall treated like shit.

Sidenote: I'm sure they raped and mistreated their slaves in Africa as well but not to the same extent (Correct me if I'm wrong)

So my question is when people in Africa eventually found out how slaves in America were being treated did they try and stop the slave trade or did they seriously not care

Bonus Question: How did they decide who would be slaves in America, was it criminals and poor people, or was it just any random person

Asking about America cause I'm American but if you know about how they were treated in other parts of the world, please tell me.

I wanted to know why Roman stability didn't produce a huge overpopulation / agrarian revolution that confer geopolitical dominance over other barbarian tribes. Was life for the majority of Celts living under Roman rule largely unaltered outside of a few cities?

While watching this year's NFL kick-off game, I noticed that several members of Chiefs' defense have quite unusual names (such as Thakarius, L'Jarius and Charvarius).

All three players were born around the time period (1996-97) and in the same region (Deep South - either in Mississippi or Louisiana) which made me wonder if there is a pattern here that can be attributed to a social or cultural shift among the black communities of the region in 1990s.

I do remember reading about how the Back-to-Africa and Black Power movements made African (or African-sounding) names more popular in African-American communities but the names mentioned above do not fit to that custom. The suffix -ius does sound Latin which makes this practice even more interesting.

Why did black parents suddenly start to use this type of names in 1990s? Is there a watershed moment in the 90s which deeply affected the black communities in the US and led to the popularization of such names? If that is the case, did previous momentous events (such as the Civil War, black emancipation, Civil Rights Movement, etc.) create similar noticeable changes in the African-American naming customs?

I would also appreciate it if anyone can suggest a source which narrates how the naming traditions among the African-Americans did change over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries.

what is the average target hit % of those torpedoes? what an u boats commander do when he don't have any more torpedoes while still in action? do the allies know that u boats only have this little torpedoes and have they strategies to counter these submarines?

I've come across Big History as promoted by David Christian & co., and as someone with a multidisciplinary background it strongly appeals to me, but it seems like the kind of thing where you can slip into Jared Diamond-type hackery quite easily.

How reputable is the field (?) among professional historians, and if it's taken seriously, what materials should I start with as an undergraduate (i.e. someone looking for something more substantive than the MOOC directed at highschoolers)?

Are there any institutional concentrations of expertise? Macquarie and Amsterdam seem to be the main two names but even Amsterdam only has two relevant faculty as far as I can tell. Do any other institutions have major concentrations of "macrohistory" scholarship, at least, if not specfically under the Big History umbrella?

Dracula was written in 1897. The Hound was written in 1902. Were demonic dogs a common theme in literature at the time?

EDIT: I don't know how the "Royalty, Nobility, and Exercise of Power" got there. It wasn't intentional

In his paper "Accounting for Profit and the History of Capital," Jonathan Levy notes that before the mid- nineteenth century, corporations in the United States were generally chartered for a fixed period, for a fixed purpose - often a public-spirited one (2014). This is more of a background point relative to Levy's main argument, and is taken as a given in his paper, but looking through his footnotes, it seems like there's a pretty substantial literature on this, concentrated in law reviews and in specialized business and economic history journals.

Pulling on that thread led me down a bit of a rabbit hole - it got me thinking about what the capital markets of the 19th century were like, when most corporations raising debt were more like today's public authorities than like the Fortune 500, and when most of the securities investors bought and traded were issued by governments.

While plenty of countries have been created since 1945 thanks to decolonization, "conquest" doesn't really seem like a thing in the post-war world. But when it was - and when government securities were an even more popular place for investors to put their savings to work - what happened to a country's outstanding debt if it was conquered by a foreign power?

Was it more like a bankruptcy - with creditors scrambling to recover their investment, maybe even by taking over assets they have a lien on? Or more like a corporate acquisition, with the "acquiring" country assuming responsibility for the debt stack of the "merger target"? Or none of the above? Was there a 19th century Lee Buchheit offering their services to countries in need of relief from their lenders?

It doesn't need to be a book that covers the entire 1945-2020 period, I'm willing to buy more than one book to make this solid net of 45-2020

Good day,

I would like to learn more on the HRE, but I do not know where to start, and do not know where to search. My question is, what is the best way to learn about a specific history subject? Using the internet, books? If so, what websites are good and reliable, where can I find accurate books? How good are history documentaries, and who makes the best ones? What are the best resources overall?

Thank you and sorry if I have too many questions...

Ok, I'm asking this question because I am researching someone in North Carolina (USA). She owned land in the late 1700s, when women were not supposed to be able to do that. There is also no mention of a husband in her will or in any records I can find. How could this be?

Hi guys, I was wondering what was the relationship between the early Nazi Party movement and Mussolini's government.

We all know that Hitler and Mussolini were strict allies, but when did this relationship start?

In 1933, as the Nazis rose to power, or earlier?

Thank you for your time and have a great day!

Almost all depictions I can recall show clean shaven faces.