Were the Americans who joined up looked on as adventurers, like those who traditionally joined the French Foreign Legion? Ignored, like modern examples of foreigners joining the YPG/ YPJ in Syria? Or looked down upon like mercenaries or pirates?

*Yes, I know the US didn't get formally involved in the Spanish Civil War.

I've been reading a book about Suleiman the Magnificent, and in his ride to Istanbul, four units are described as guarding him. I know the Spahis are sort of the land owning cavalry corps similar to Knights of Europe and all, and the slave soldier shock troops of the Janissaries, and the rivalry between the two. However, two are described that I've never heard of. My google searches only get me the quote from Ogier Ghiselin himself, but describes the other two as cavalry units called "Ghourebas" and "Ouloufedjis", of which I've never heard of, in any military histories or even games such as AoE and Total War.

​

What are they, what was their social role and standing, and where they in any famous battles or engagements of any sort, or were they a ceremonial unit of some sort simply meant to Guard Suleiman on the way to Istanbul? Thanks in advance.

What was so important about having THAT much black pepper?? Sure it was valuable but was it really THAT valuable?

I am currently listening to Mike Duncan’s excellent Revolutions podcast and it struck me that warfare during this revolution appears much more open and decisive than the slogging stalemate awaiting Europe just a few years later. Why is this so?

I was talking with a coworker about tanks in WWII, and I got curious about something. Even when I was young, I have seen models and replicas and media depicting Allied tanks (especially American tanks such as the Sherman) as having spare equipment carried on them bolted to the sides and back: rope and extra wheels, track parts, spare fuel cans, ammo, and even infantry kit. However, when I was watching Fury recently I noticed that while the Shermans all were carrying equipment like that, the German tanks were not.

Was it uncommon for German tanks to carry spare supplies and equipment like this, or is this just a case of misleading media portrayal?

I remember hearing an anecdote somewhere, how during one night in the last weeks of his presidency Nixon got so drunk and aggressive, that Henry Kissinger had to call to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that if Nixon orders a nuclear strike that night, confirm first from him if it is for real. Is there any truth to it? In general, how unstable Nixon was during that time? Is there any indication that he was at some point preparing to take other people down with him, perhaps not as literally as with nuclear weapons? And how paralyzed the administration was?

The legal scholars are debating if the US actually allows for states to secede. Some say because nothing about it is explicitly stated in the constitution, there is nothing legally stopping a state from doing so. Others say that the US is a nation state and no explicit law is needed to state that secession is not possible.

I understand that the American civil war was about states announcing that they were no longer part of the US, and the US stopping their attempts which was, according to the US, unlawful.

Has there ever an attempt for a state to lawfully secede from the US? How far did it go, what happened?

You see in various movies or shows that pyramids had traps in them. Did actual pyramids have traps? If so, what kinds would they use?

So many questions asked everyday include unnecessary preamble statements or premises, many of which are non-expert opinion (or outright false) but presented as historical fact (and therefore read by vast numbers of people as historical fact). In the vast majority of cases these questions do not actually rely on the premise as written, and could be trivially rephrased to be questions alone rather than statements with an arising question.

The issue I have with these types of questions is:

• The premise is very often wrong, malformed, or prejudiced. Often if a user could authoritatively establish the premise to a certainty, they could answer the question themselves.

• The premise may be rebutted, but only if the question receives an answer.

• False information in the question (ie. the title) will be read by far more users than the answer itself.

The question itself is, I guess, clear enough, but here is some context:

While I don't disagree antisemitism is indeed a horrible thing, and people participating in discrimination and persecution of Jews did not hold views I support, I believe all humans, however biased, tend to assign some kind of rationale to their actions (even if that rationale is ultimately not logically sound).

Now, I know modern western antisemites usually reference a theoretical "Zionist Occupation Government" or some other hypothetical global organization that secretly orchestrates the world as they see fit for their goals, while muslim/arabic antisemites say they hate Jews for their actions in relation to Palestinians and estabilishing the State of Israel.

In similar fashion, I'm sure there is information about what reasons people committing pogroms and killings in Middle Ages and later during the Renaissance period used to justify their actions. What were those reasons? Did they evolve in any way during this period?

​

Thanks!

I'm specifically referring to European folklore here, as the story portrays a number of northern and eastern European gods and other various bogeymen. I am aware that Africans who were forcibly transported to the Americas of course brought their beliefs with them.

Or would it have been possible to be sentenced to slavery as a white person? Or could slavetraders have imported white people as slaves?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. I was reading about the Balkan Wars and it seems strange that the powers of the time were worried about the "sick man of Europe" collapsing.

Since a lot of WW1 seems based on territorial gain, wouldn't a divided Middle East serve the interests of the Imperialist powers of the time?

I was reading recently about the historicity of the Iliad - how archaeologists have recently discovered remains of Troy and suggestive writings in Assyrian texts, leading to speculation that the ancient poem may have been based on a real war.

Is there any such evidence, even tenuous, that makes it plausible that ancient Indian epics could have also been real? Remains? Ruins? Letters or stone tablets that mention important events/characters? Etc?