Please correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that early monarchs would fund all state expenditures out of their own private money. If they wanted to buy a beer, or build a public road it would come from the same purse. Most of the monarchs funds would come from land that they as individuals owned.

Later monarchs had separate finances from the state. Citizens didn't pay taxes to the king they paid it to the government, just like the king didn't buy ships for the navy, the state did.

How and when did this transition occur? Or am I way off?

Did he bring slaves?

I understand this is a very broad question but I'm seeking out a broad topic. I know in broad strokes what the political history of the North American colonies looked like, but what was the experience of inhabiting a British or French or Spanish colony in the "new world," like? How was the experience of an inhabitant of Williamsburg different from the experience of a similarly situated person in an English urban zone? What kind of music did they listen to and was it significantly different from the music that was enjoyed in the home country? Was the experience of religion for a "Puritan" in New England or a Catholic in Florida significantly different from the experience of their European counterparts? These are just questions off the top of my head but I'm really just sort of looking to dive in and learn something new about a period and place I don't know all that much about. I hope this question isn't too vague!

I've seen posts and heard people talk about GoT being based on actual happenings, what are they?

Edit: that includes A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm interested in learning more about the contributing factors in Singapore's rise to wealth. I realize there are probably many, many factors, but I'm looking for an overview. Maybe someone could point me in the direction of a website or a book on the topic for more details?

(I'm not sure if "third world" and "first world" are the appropriate terms)

I have to admit, I'm one of those people who supposedly has a Cherokee great-great-great-grandma. Although I've found evidence that actually supports this (old census records) I'm still skeptical. A lot of people say that they have Cherokee or other Native American ancestry and I'm not sure it's true. On the other hand, I don't want to sit over here denying my heritage if it's likely that the records are accurate.

So historically, how much mixing actually occurred? How likely is it that the records I found are accurate? Is there some reason that 200 years ago someone that wasn't might claim they were a Native American? If there is, is that what attributes so many people claiming a heritage that they do not have? I just wonder if it's something that at some point people decided was "cool" and they made it up or if it's something that was true and buried in family histories until it became socially acceptable after the Civil Rights Movement or something.

Thanks!

Why didn't the Portuguese join the Spanish, the English, the French, and the Dutch in the battles for control of the Caribbean region? Or did they and I'm not aware of it?

With the upcoming Bi-Centennial of the Battle of Waterloo on the 18th of June, I finally sat down and read Bernard Cornwell's 'Sharpe's Waterloo,' and watched the accompanying 1997 film. In both works, I was surprised by the depiction of William II of the Netherlands' as incompetent, selfish and cowardly. Knowing very little about the man, and having done little further reading than Wikipedia vis-à-vis the battle itself, I'm unsure of the accuracy of this portrayal. I can only assume it's embellished to a degree, but I'd be fascinated to learn more.

Would average commoners on the streets of cities throughout the new country have known who he was, and his contributions in the war?

Or would he have been known primarily to wealthy men of means, commanders in the revolutionary army, and the men who directly served with or under him?

As a somewhat related question, did Lafayette's service in the war have any impact from what we can tell on early American impressions of France, beyond just what general French support during the war would have done?

IIRC Black flags were supposed to mean the pirates were more civil while red flags were supposed to mean the pirates were more barbaric.

I am under the impression that the Roman military contained soldiers from regions throughout the Empire, many of whom presumably didn't speak Latin as a first language. Were these people taught to speak at least basic Latin as part of their training, were they expected to pick it up on their own, or were they simply placed under the command of people who spoke their language?

This question was borne out of the whole trouble that the Belgian government went through to issue a coin commemorating the battle.

Did the battle contribute to shaping Europe as we know it? What would likely be different if Napoleon had won?

I've heard many times about how early anatomists defied laws against body snatching to get cadavers, so that they could dissect them and figure out how the human body worked. When they published books on their findings, what did they say someone asked, "Hey, how did you figure out this stuff?"

Some context: as a mathematician, I often hear colleagues argue that we ought to consider the mathematics of historical cultures alongside European mathematics as a part of the history of mathematics. For example, "India" or "China" (historical India/China) had a notion of 0 before Europeans did, therefore that should be acknowledged as a major, non-European mathematical development. I am not entirely confortable with this and I hope you can help. What we understand as "mathematics" is, in the sense that its history is rooted in, European mathematical developments that had little influence from India or China. Therefore, can these examples be considered part of the history of what we understand as mathematics? Is this just a matter of semantics? Or, should we ackowledge that are/were many "mathematics" developed at different points in time to varying degrees and our modern notion ought to encompass them all, even those that terminated at some point in the past?

Edit: I acknowledge that this question is not about a specific event, but rather about historiographical methods.

To clarify, could a soldier of a lower tier, say a poor man that was a Velite, gain a higher rank (Hastati, Principe, Triarii, Equites, etc.) based solely on his performance in battle?

As far as I understand it, by the time of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE, the Jews were mainly concentrated in the Fertile Crescent, with smaller populations in Rome, along the Persian Gulf and Yemen (though I may be wrong). I'm very curious to know what happened to them that they ended up in the backwaters of Poland and in England, and elsewhere in Europe. Thanks.

*Examples, sorry.