The three great pyramids of Giza were built just within one century of each other from 2590-2500 BC, in the Old Kingdom. As far as I understand it (and it goes without saying, please correct me if I'm wrong), the next generations also built pyramids to some extent, but those weren't as large or as well built, so that many fell into ruins.

The most powerful pharaos of the Middle and New Kingdom didn't even built any large tombs at all, instead ultimately preferring to be buried far away from anybody, in a hidden valley (the Valley of the Kings).

What are the reasons for this change? Were they economical, that pyramids were simply too expensive? Or were there religious reasons? Or something else entirely?

i.e. were Latinos, Asians (including ethnically Indian or those from the Indian subcontinent), Native Americans, etc. subject to the same laws as blacks?

Would they also have experiences the same violence and oppression by other people?

Would this have been the same for Apartheid S. Africa?

Were claims of exploration widely accepted, or did they spawn conspiracy theories similar to the whole moon landing theories? Did foreign powers dispute them to deny the king/queen prestige?

Did the opposite happen, i.e. a sailor returning and claiming to have explored something without having actually done so?

Thank you for your time in advance!

In media they're always given a very refined American accent, often one that sounds like a Boston accent.

Is there any consensus (or way of postulating) on what they realistically would have sounded like at the time?

I find usually the same crappy articles here and there but nothing really any good or with decent sources.

Any suggestions?

If these plans existed how far did they go? Where would these monuments have stood?

A secondary, barely related question: Were some of the motivations in regards to the opening of Death Camps to the public related to monetary gain?

The claim was made to me by someone doing Graduate research in Germany that there exists private correspondence indicating that both of these things were true but they were unwilling to provide me with so much as a name so I could look any further. Any information is of interest to me.

Let me preface this question by first stating that it is very obvious that WWII and the Holocaust were very very terribly bad. The worst possible. EDIT: It is also painfully obvious that Hitler was very terrible, but the question is about how much of the bad stuff was he personally responsible for, and how much of everything did he know?

However, just like how it is silly, but easy, to pin all the wrongdoings of a company on it's CEO, exactly how involved was Hitler with the concentration camps and war crimes? Can Hitler be blamed for every single war crime commited by the Nazi Regime. Clearly, he was not a good person, but how bad was Hitler?

I'm thinking of the Khmer student group in Paris, and its relation with the later government apparatus of "Democratic" Kampuchea. This group included Pol Pot, Thieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith, and Hou Yuon.

Were these students influenced by their tutors at the time? IIRC, French academia has long been a hub for radical left-wing thought - cf Georges Boudarel, Mai 68. Who would have been teaching the future Khmer Rouge? What were they studying? What causal relationship, if any, exists between their French education and the horror they unleashed upon Cambodia when they gained power?

And additionally, what changes occurred in policy after his death?

Here is the quote from The Twelve Caesars, " In the gladiatorial contest in the Forum Furius Leptinus, a man of praetorian stock, and Quintus Calpenus, a former senator and pleader at the bar, fought to a finish".

This question is not aimed for any particular period or area, just merely about the existence of the trade itself.

• Were there ever any marble or stone exports?

• Did a city ever find a substantial income from these exports?

• How were they sold/transported? I've read of stone being on ships, but usually only as ballast.

• In what form were these sold and for what purpose? (I am not asking about art per se, or the sale of statues). How economical was it to transport hulking masses of stone, especially if there was no maritime route available?

• In games like Civilization, stone and marble is regarded as a valuable resource. Were there any notable nations/examples of this?

• How did substitution work during the draft, particularly if someone was offering to go to war in a sibling's stead?

• What would a cavalry lieutenant in 1862 likely be carrying on his person? Would one of those things include a pistol? I know that carbines and sabers were typically carried by the cavalry and not pistols, but would it be common enough for them to carry them? If so, what kind of pistol was the most common? Edit: and seriously, what other items? I want to know what this guy's toting around in his pockets. Pocketwatch, maybe? A little bit of food? Balls, powder and wadding for his rifle? His commission papers, probably. What else?

• What kind of saddles and typical riding tack were used in the cavalry? I know a good bit about horses and modern tack, but I'm pretty sure I won't know much about anything unique they may have used in 1862.

• In 1862, how well fed were Rebel soldiers, particularly officers? Any difference in their supplies at Sharpsburg?

• What were the sexual morals of the 1860s? And like most hormone-crazy teenagers, did teenagers of that day and age run around and get laid? Were they just quieter about it if that's the case, and no one really found out about it or talked about it? And what about stuff like oral sex and full nudity even between husband and wife? I've read somewhere that a lot of wives would blow out the lamp and just lay there and wouldn't even let their husbands do more than hike their skirts up to do the deed. Was this commonplace? Or was this kind of prudishness a rarity?

Thank you very very much to anyone that takes the time to answer these questions!

For instance, nowadays it's increasingly common for people to play games on their phones or browse Facebook for hours every day. In the early 1900s (say before widespread access to TV), was there some equivalent set of activities people in the US would engage in to the same degree? Was there concern, moral or otherwise, about some new activity children engaged in seemingly to excess?