Hey all, I'm looking to brush up on MENA history. Any suggestions on literature regarding Pre-Ottoman Islamic histories. Thanks a ton!

I remember being told multiple times, by both teachers and a few lawyer family members, that when the U.S. Constitution was sent out to each state for ratification there were "typos" in some of the copies. Most notably, the comma after Militia in the first sentence of the 2nd amendment was missing on some State copies.

From a legal perspective this could change/shape the debate over gun control currently taking place drastically. However, I am unable to find any real reference to this "discrepancy".

Is this just some "wive's tale" I've been sold my entire life?

DISCLAMER I do not condone the use of derogatory terms. I am purely interested in this from an academic sense.

For those of you that don't know nappy is a term used to describe the hair of people of African origin and is commonly seen as derogatory. I'm looking into the etymology of the term because I'm interested to see if it connects to the use of nappy to mean diaper. This diaper meaning usage is common in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland from what I can tell. I've found a wikipedia entry saying

"These words (nappy and bushy) were originally used by slaveowners, as far back as the 1800s, to grotesquely describe the hair of their slaves." citing

West, Willis (1922). History of the American People. Boston, MA.: Allyn and Bacon. p. 1-819.

but I can't find that book or other sources beyond wikipedia or a few nerd mom blogs about the use of nappy vs diaper and dont cite any sources. Basically I'm wondering if the term originated as calling someone shit head cause babies shit in diapers and the hair is on their head or something to that extent. I know that the US wasn't on the list of countries that use nappy to mean diaper but it may have been in the 1800's and then diaper replaced it as the derogatory term took primary definition locally.

Now, during World War One there was massive amounts of damage done to towns, buildings, and almost everything. My question is, was there an attempt to avoid destroying religious symbols like a church or a cathedral?

Manchuria (if I've understood what I've read) was Chinese territory at the time of the invasion. Why didn't it lead to a Sino-Japanese war immediately, starting in 1931, separate from everything else in WW2? Why did the Chinese just let them have it, and no war ensued until the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937?

edit: I meant to say "discontinued in Germany" in the title, of course. Sorry for that mistake!

I'm not sure whether I have phrased my question correctly, it is not a direct citation, rather just a rough outline from my memory.

This is a topic that interests me a lot, as a Czech and a gay guy.

I tried looking it up on google (in Czech and English), but I didn't find much concerning sexual sciences in the pre-WW2 period. Most of the works I found were about sexology during Socialism. A lot of them mentioned the prewar period, but very briefly, mostly they just compared the prewar sexology, which according to them was mainly researching "sexual aberrations", to the sexology of socialism, which focused on gender theory, scientifical emancipation, etc.

Thank you a lot for your potential answers!

Disclaimer: I saw this question in another subreddit but nobody did a good job answering the question.

I would’ve figured they’d have it much worse since fighting was closer and some battles and sieges could last days/months/years.

My understanding is the late empire had alot more cavalry and the Spartha and oval shield is better for cavalry. Why didnt the heavy infantry stick with the scutum and gladius?

How did Roman tactics change when the infantry switched to the Spartha and oval shield? Do the lines have more space between, etc.. ?

I haven't been able to find any information on this either on AskHistorians or elsewhere, probably because of the difficulty involved in understanding contemporary ethnicity around the world, let alone in understanding ethnicity as it applied to people in the past.

With that said, my understanding is that Egyptian identity in the modern era is pretty complicated and involves different ideas about their status as Arabs, as Muslims (and as Christians), and as heirs to a 5000 year old civilization, but that they refer to themselves as Masreyyin (or something along those lines).

This looks like more of a national, i.e., 21st century style nation-state-citizenship based identity than anything else. I also understand that ethnicity and other types of group identity take many different forms across the world!

But assuming Masreyyin serves as the primary identity of the people of Egypt apart from their religious identities, when did this take effect? I've read that Ancient Egyptians referred to themselves as "People of Kemet" and I believe modern Copts refer to themselves as Niremenkimi.

TL;DR: Did the Islamic conquest of Egypt transform local identity from Niremenkimi / Rmt-n-kmt to Masreyyin? How long did the process take? What did this transformation look like?

Thank you for reading and answering my long and probably difficult question!

A recent thread brought the question to mind using a particular episode of Band of Brothers as the reference. I know that troops can and will get frustrated with their COs but I am curious if there are nearly as many documented instances.

As an aside, did government censorship and propaganda play a role in the public perception of such conduct did occur?