I mean logically if you saw Africans as subhuman wouldn't it be kind of like bestiality to have sex with your African slave? Was there any social/legal/religious pressure not to have sex with Africans because of a similar reasoning?

Watching a show on NatGeo about ancient man discovering fire and thinking surely they had to learn about containing it somehow. Is there any way to know if some countryside was turned to ash because of some careless caveman?

I was a bit confused when Civ 6 included Gilgamesh as one of the playable rulers, being that I thought they used real rulers rather than Hercules-types. Then one of my friends said there was actually some evidence that there was a Gilgamesh. I learned about him from mythology taught in my high school humanities class. Is there evidence?

As per the title, does anyone know of a colloquial term ancient Egyptians used to refer to Ptolemies? For example, we call police "cops", or "pigs" etc. Surely the Egyptians had local, possibly derisive terms for the Ptolemy soldiers etc.?

Is it arbitrary that the legendary serpents of European and Asian tradition are both referred to as dragons? Or is there some historical connection between that two traditions the justifies the mutual classification? I suspect that they're completely different things, that are grouped together because of superficial similarities. I'm curious whether my hunch is accurate.

Follow up question: Where did this caricature of British generals (or officers) being stupid and incompetent come from?

I apologise for the poor wording of this question. But seeing as their is no up or down in outer space, why did we decide that up was up and down was down? And what role does North/South/West/East play in it?

As a side question that may or may not have sources, how devoted to he Roman Empire were auxiliaries? Did Romans command the auxiliaries as centurions, or were men chosen from their ranks? I assume generals and those immediately below generals would have been "pure" Roman citizens.

Were the American soldiers well received by Entente forces? How much trench warfare did they participate in?

I came across one of these, and after doing some research, I'm pretty sure it's authentic. It is stamped with a mark that says "PM" and I haven't been able to find that mark anywhere else, so I'm wondering if anyone here has ever seen it. If you have, can you let me know wether or not it's authentic. Thanks.

I was watching a documentary about the civil war and it made it seem like the root cause of the war was disagreements over the morality of slavery between the north and the south. Idk but to me it seems kind of hard to believe that the north took up arms mainly to fight the racist ideals of the south and to abolish the institution of slavery. I feel like in the 1860s most white northerners, including politicians and lawmakers, we're probably still racist to some degree, right? I feel like there had to have been some other, more political reasons for the start of the war.

Was there something inherently 'Greek' about the founding of Rome? Did Greek culture infiltrate Rome via conquest, trade? Was there an an acknowledged shared culture that say, Germanic or Celtic 'barbarians' were not part of? When was the start of this culture?

Thanks in advance!

Did the Lebensborn program actually have successful results or was it a failure?

Also, I've been wondering what the overall total count was for children born into the program, throughout all involved countries, as well as the kidnapped children. I've been trying to research it but no where gives me any definite numbers. I'm aware that the majority of the documents involving Lebensborn were burned but there has to be some rough estimate for a total count, right?

I tried doing some extensive research and most of the discussion links only lead to "Why" slavery happened. Was it a massive gap in technology? How did said gap happen? Lack of organization. How/why?

First time asking in /r/askhistorians. Sorry if this has already been answered before/has an obvious answer.

Cities like New York City, Singapore, and Shanghai are significantly economically successful due to it's coastal ports and accessibility to the global trade market, while cities like Seoul, Beijing, and Moscow were successful due to the nature of their governments and their statuses as capitals.

However, Chicago is smack-dab in the middle of America, and its only international trading partner is Canada. I understand its history where the railroad system during the industrial revolution made Chicago grow, but wasn't that essentially just domestic trading within the US only? If that were true, why weren't the other railroad hubs in America as successful as Chicago was in growth? To my understanding, America during the industrial era wasn't as dominant as she is today, so why was an inland domestic trade hub able to get so large, even compared to other inland trade hubs?

I have a paper proposal due this week for a 4000 level class. Last semester I focused on the validity of the Vinland Saga as well as the Greenlanders Saga. I was just wondering if you guys had any other ideas I should consider before I build on my paper from the last semester.