Islamic customs are pretty strict, so I imagine they were still having ramadans and praying five times a day, is it true?

Who kicked who out of land, why do two countries claim ownership of the same land, ect

I'm in class about WWI, and we're currently discussing its democratizing effect on society and how it was a catalyst for women finally gaining the right to vote in America in 1919. What I don't understand is why women's suffrage took so long in France. At the time, France was was known as very socially progressive, and they were one of the first countries in Europe to introduce universal male suffrage. So why did female suffrage take so much longer than the US or Britain? I know the Napoleonic code stripped women of virtually all rights, but there was a flurry of social change around WWI, and the term "feminism" even started in France. Why also is it that up until the 1990s women had very little representation in French politics?

Edit: 1990s not 1890s.

I'm particularly interested in a comparative study.

Thanks in advance!

Whenever I teach anthropology I enjoy the old adage that the goal is to make the bizarre mundane and the mundane bizarre. To that end, when I teach about genital cutting I always like to discuss its history in the US. Most people are quite aware of male circumcision especially since there are movements now to end it. But the vast majority of my students are unaware that cliterodectomies were once performed legally in the West as part of a medical procedure. To that end I've read a few peer reviewed pieces I've found on JSTOR about Isaac Baker Brown, psychology of the ovary, and his procedure (which easily compares in brutality to the narratives students read about FGC in Africa.)

Students are usually fascinated, horrified, and full of questions not all of which I have the answers to so I'm hoping you can help fill in some gaps. How common were cliterodectomies in the mid 19th century as medical solutions to things like epilepsy, depression, nervousness, "vice", etc.? Any estimates on how many women were subject to the procedure? How did the general public feel about it - was it accepted or seen a bit of a quack procedure? How did the women feel about it afterwards? Were they angry, satisfied, depressed, or what? What about their husbands? During his trial Brown said the procedure had been performed since Hippocrates - how accurate is that statement? And since the operation still continued to pop up time to time in medical texts how much did Brown's fall from grace really impact their frequency?

Here is the scenario: The regiments A and B are marching against each other in line formation. They are equal in number, training and moral. Every soldier of A carries - let's say - four wheellock / flintlock / caplock muskets: One in his hand and three in a bag on his back. They're all loaded. The soldiers of B are equipped normally with one musket per solider. The regiments fire at the same time and suffer equal losses after the first volley. B starts reloading, but A puts the muskets down and draws the next one. And shoots, and shoots, and shoots. So this is the situation afterwards: B fired one volley and is now ready to fire the second, but A already fired four. So B already suffered four times as many losses and their second volley will be much weaker than A's next one. A will suffer less than B with every volley until B is dead or runs away.

Wouldn't that be an enormous advantage? I can think of two disadvantages, though:

1. The weight. But a musket only weights a few kg and if an army is capable of transporting heavy cannons - why not a few extra muskets? You wouldn't have to equip the whole army with multiple muskets, just a few regiments to crush the enemy line somewhere and gain an advantage.
2. The cost. I can't really argue here, it's definitely more pricey. Where muskets expensive? Looted weapons could be an option in this case.

That's it. Why was this never done? Or did someone tried it? Is it a stupid idea? (It probably is.)

I am interested in a high level history degree, but I am scared of all of the language requirements.

From my understanding, Nazi Germany wanted to Germanize Eastern Europe and colonize it essentially. Why? Were colonial holdings that important?

The Sumerian mythological entity Asag (because the definitions are messed up enough as it is, I refuse to use modern terminology like "demon", but he is, to be as vague as possible, a monster) is in various sources given as either one of the Gallu, or as an evil Utukku. Which of these two is true? Or are Gallu a subgroup of Utukku?

This picture was allegedly taken in 1880 by Camillus Sidney Fly, in Tombstone (USA).

Besides the technical aspects of the picture that "looks like" from XIX century, the aesthetics elements from it - the general pose, the type of the body, the position of the legs and feet - suggest to me a picture from XX or XIX century.

Was Camillus Sidney Fly, aesthetically, so ahead of his time?

When Europeans arrived to the Americas they brought diseases the native's immune systems were not prepared for. Millions died from this. However I have not heard of diseases working on the opposite directions. Were there any diseases Europeans were not aware of that the natives carried but were immune to? Did Europeans discovered diseases in the Americas that were not found in Europe, Africa, or Asia?

Also, was European medicine advanced enough that the colonists were able to fight off most diseases the natives were host to?

I'm reading Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux and came across this, and he mentions shekels being used, bits of weighted silver, but did no Sumerian or Assyrian king ever put their face on money? The Egyptians didn't use minted coins? The Phoenecians? Am I misunderstanding something?

It's practically common knowledge that the medieval European knight wielded a lance. I'm also under the impression that they would (as need arose) fight with a sword (mace, axe, hammer, etc) from horseback as well. When it became necessary to change from one to the other in the midst of battle, how would this be accomplished? What happened to the lance when the sword was drawn? How did he get a lance when needed?

I feel like in the West, the Eastern front is largely ignored.

I read Thucydides a few years ago and felt kind of shortchanged that there was no conclusion to the many events written by the people of the time. If there are any recommendations, please let me know.

Are there really such things as a lion living in snow?