What ethnicity was the majority of ancient Egyptians?

It seems as though Protestants in general rejected the more ostentatious displays of faith and wealth that Catholics displayed in their churches, but what was their specific problem with the crucifix (the image of Jesus hanging on the cross, rather than simply the cross itself)?

It's fairly well-known that Michigan and Ohio became embroiled in the Toledo War over the "Toledo Strip", and that in return for ceding territory a few miles north to Ohio, Michigan received what is now the Upper Peninsula. That explains the current Michigan-Ohio border.

What I have never been able to find out though it why Indiana's border with Michigan runs a few miles off north from Ohio's boundary (even after Ohio getting the Toledo Strip). I do know that over the years there's been debate as to where Indiana's border with Michigan even actually is, but it seems odd that Indiana got its border something like 4 or 5 extra miles north of Ohio's, resulting in the weird angle around Clear Lake in Indiana, east of Fremont.

So why are Indiana and Ohio's borders different? Why didn't Indiana just end up with a border that was a continuation of Ohio's? Is there an actual reason?

EDIT: Typos fixed.

I've read that Sherman lost control of his troops and this is why they began to destroy civilian property as well as property potentially useful to Confederate troops. Though it seems he didn't mind it much. It just seems peculiar to me that, after reading about how soldiers indulged themselves with what they could grab, in this regard they could be restrained.

[deleted]

Did they end up becoming officials, priests, were they killed like sometimes happened with the Ottomans?

Since royal Egyptian women could not marry below their station what did excess daughters do?

I'm very much interested in Thai history(especially the reign of King Naresuan who I consider the "George Washington" of ancient Siam), and I'm also a big fan of Thai historical films focusing in on the era.

From what I've read and seen, it appeared that Siam at that time was a powerful nation, and commanded respect from local powers,European, and East Asian nations.

But on the world stage(at that time), exactly how strong of a nation was Siam(and the other SE Asian nations)? Did they hold a formidable military with a strong economy and an overall powerful nation, or were they just regional powers?

or podcasts

I know that Giuseppe Garibaldi was an outspoken supporter if the union, and Lincoln offered him a position as head of the union army, but what about other Italians/Foreigners?

Say for example, training a 1000 men and equipping with armour and weapons. How much would that cost?

I know that the Vikings came into contact with Muslims when they raided Islamic Spain, but that's as far as my knowledge on this matter goes. Did Muslims come in contact with any other pagans in the lands that they conquered? Any Spanish pagans, Italian (Sicilian) pagans, any in the former Byzantine territories (Graeco-Egyptian pagans, any Hellenic-Roman pagans in the Levant), etc? If yes, how did they interact with them? Were they persecuted for a bit and then given "people of the book" status like the Zoroastrians? Or were they completely wiped out from the beginning?

My understanding is that Stoicism was the most influential philosophy in Rome until the late Roman empire, at which point neo-Platonism became more prominent. This seems really weird to me because I don't see what would make neo-Platonism attractive to a typical layman. Did neo-Platonists modify their worldview to make it more suitable for popular consumption?

I recently read about an ongoing discussion in the research of ancient history about the planning (or lack thereof) that went into the foreign policy of roman emperors (especially Augustus, as I understand being the first who actually had the time and power to make such strategic decisions for long periods of time all by himself and not only as part of a ruling elite). I was thus wondering, how that would or would not have been possible, based on the information available to the emperor (what does the land look like, where's the next river, who lives there, where should the borders be drawn). What sources are available today that give information about this?

In Azincourt, the book of Bernard Cornwell, the father of the protagonist is kicked to death in a football match, while the players were looking for the lost ball in the bush. The local lord, when asked to investigate the case answers something like "Half of England could be hanged if every fatality in football would be considered a murder." Is there any truth in this story? Was football really a game were fatalities were commonplace? Just for comparison, nowadays 5-10 professionals die on the field yearly while playing soccer, so while it is dangerous to some degree it's not that dangerous.

I've never understood quite who the Cossacks were. At different points they seem to be a tribe of bandits, freedom fighters, a professional warrior class, Russians that happen to live on the borders of the empire, or a completely separate people. Who were the Cossacks?

I know that Western countries have had amusement parks for about a century, however I have never heard about, not been able to find out if they did in the USSR. Or in any other communist republic (Cuba GDR, etc)

Both were contacted by Europeans around the same era, 14-1500s so why was 95% of native Americans wiped out but not 95% of Japanese people? Just curious, and thanks in advanced. :)