More precisely I am looking for answer about Belgian Congo, although answers about French and British territories are appreciated, too. How much wealth in form of taxes and primary resources did these colonies bring to their respective rulers?

EDIT: I meant 1800's/19th century. I messed my numbers up.

If yes, did this cause any major problems or significant armed revolts? Thank you for your responses.

Apologies if this has been posted before, perhaps someone could post a reference if it has.

How has the second amendment been interpreted over time in the US? It seems like one popular interpretation today is "the right to own a gun" (with no other qualifications).

My own understanding is that the "well regulated militia" is integral to the amendment, and barring militia membership gun ownership is not a right.

Obviously, the text is not so clear, and I am wondering who is really on more solid ground when discussing gun control.

Thanks!

Partially inspired by the recent Extra History regarding Justinian and Theodora.

So I've been reading John Julius Norwich's excellent three part history of the Byzantium. In book one The early centuries he mentions that either the death of Justinian I or Herakeles marks the transation. But I was wondering what other historians think of the devide or what other milestones there were.

How were enough swords and other melee weapons made in army quantities before the swords are kinda obsolete way before industrial revolution manufacturing techniques? I am kinda aware that melee weapon obsolescence wasn't all at the same time.

How well did he speak French? And did it impair communication with his Generals or writing speeches?

Bonus Question: Napoleon went to the military academy at 15, was this the average age?

It seems odd that the islands were unsettled, considering the large supply of fresh water and food on the islands. Was it luck, were the ocean currents or winds unfavorable, or is there some other explanation?

I have this vague idea that George Orwell was dismayed at the number of British/western leftists that were willing to defend Stalinism, and thus wrote 1984 to make his point that totalitarian government was not really socialist/communist/etc. and therefore should not be supported.

However, I have no idea where I picked this up, so it could be entirely speculation on my part. Does anyone know about Orwell's motivations for writing the novel, or his intent as to its meaning?

I was looking through my grandfather's WWII stuff the other day and was caught by the small case of German 9mm ammunition. It looked like regular 9mm but fittingly painted in a sinister black.

I wondered though, why the heck didn't they just use hollow point ammunition? I mean they were going around invading countries and WWII was a war of war crimes. Wouldn't it have made their weapons more deadly to have used hollow point or dum dum rounds?

On a broader note why are hollow points against the rules of war? Gas seems particularly horrible but hollow point seems like a matter of degree. It feels like banning rifles with a certain accuracy. Yes it helps your side, but it also hurts it.

This may simply be my own ignorance, on the matter, or perhaps a symptom of a failed education system, but I saw another one today, and I said I would finally ask about it.

When I see the Iron Cross, I immediately think of WWII, with all the classes, books, and documentaries on it, it's hard not to. Subsequently, when I think of the Iron Cross in WWII, it is always adorning Germans (obviously) and the Germans also wore the Nazi Swastika.

So, whether I see a Nazi Swastika or an Iron Cross, I think "Nazi Germany."

So why is it that the Iron Cross is an acceptable "decoration," if you will, it is worn on leather jackets, put as a sticker to adorn cars, etc... Whereas the same open treatment of the Nazi Swastika would be seen as deplorable and unacceptable?

(If this is the wrong subreddit, please let me know, and I will seek out answers elsewhere)

During WWII, and the few years after, were there any tanks that were close to perfect on any side of the war? Tanks that were mobile, hard hitting, and heavily fortified? Could these tanks be easily produced? I have taken a small interest in WWII history, especially the tanks, and was hoping to have a start towards what I should be looking at! Thanks for all responses!

Was the technological edge they had that great?

If so, why were they more advanced than the areas they conquered?

Thanks :)

Not everyone had access to a personal phone but I assume buildings would have them in the lobby (or at least hotels would). It would be convenient to have a number to give out but private messages would be a bit less private if someone has to write them down. Are my assumptions correct that someone at the "front desk" would take your message and give it to you later?

Sorry, this may be a silly question.

Why do most paintings before the very modern period not look lifelike? Surely artistic ability was capable of creating life-like paintings before the modern era. Obviously fads and schools of thought that emphasized certain traits and techniques were influential, but are there examples of "life-like" paintings that failed to gain popularity in say, Byzantine Venice, or Impressionist Paris?

Was reading the other day that even though China is unified it is made up of a series of regionally diverse cultural groups that in the past was the basis of some isolated kingdoms.

Why didn't this stick? Why don't we have a sort of 'euro' mainland China made up of a collections of smaller countries?

Would these women be as aware of the war as her city-dwelling countrymen? How might the war have changed her day-to-day life? Would those 5-6 years be markedly different for them than 1929-1935 had been for someone 10 years younger?

Long time lurker, first time poster. I'm trying to follow all the rules but forgive me if this is a bit vague. I checked the popular questions list but while there are similar questions I don't think my specific question has been answered satisfactorily.

Recently, I've been handed a book called "They Came before Columbus" by Ivan Sertima, which asserts that Africans had discovered and traded with the native people of the Americas long before Columbus arrived.

Of course I was taken aback by the bold claim. As somebody who strongly believes that history is dominated by the "Western" narrative, I find myself drawn to believe Sertima. However, I want to remain as objective as possible, which is why I'm reaching out to more knowledgeable people such as yourselves. So below are my questions:

• Is there any truth or evidence that strongly supports the argument that Africans arrived in the Americas before Columbus?
• What is the view of historians in general?