I know what the school curriculum teaches and I'm only 22 so I can remember a fair bit of what was taught to me at school.

Recently I've started researching the World Wars and it seems like a lot of people are saying it was really fought for economic reasons. This seems very different from the history I was taught at school. Can anyone help me with my research, is this just a conspiracy theory or is there legitimate evidence to support these claims?

Any evidence/sources will help me greatly in my research so please post them if you can.

In Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' the play-within-a-play is called 'The Mousetrap'. What would a mouse trap have consisted of in this time and place (16th Century England)? Would it be the kind of trap familiar to us now, with a spring that crushes the mouse when it eats a piece of food?

Was it a big deal? or did they just excommunicate the king and move on?

It seems odd to me. After all, can't you learn just about everything about the human body with just one corpse? Have a whole classroom attending and the lesson is learned.... right? Nor would I expect these cadavers to be in short supply. Surely there were plenty of old, sick or murdered people with no family on which you could perform your slicing ways?

Under Suleiman the Ottoman conquest reached as far as Hungary. Why not expand into the rest of Europe? Edit: Thanks for the detailed responses guys. I was wondering how would you describe diplomatic relations between the Ottoman empire and the rest of Europe? Was Europe mostly united in its attempts to rebuff the Ottomans?

dang I see I properly butchered the title, submitted halfway through changing it probably

I am aware of the FAQ on Jesus and the difficulties of sourcing something so far away in time as well as unimportant when compared to, say, rulers of large states. A bunch of mentions about a local preacher and his cult seems (at least to me as a layman) more than reasonable to assume he did exist.

So I'm wondering – what other fairly important historical figures are also sourced by a relatively small number of historical documents or documents far removed in time etc.?

Obviously I'm asking because the question of Jesus' life gets people on the internet riled up from time to time, so I'm interested in whether there's someone like that whose existence is readily accepted while not being subject to over the top scrutiny, unlike Big J.

I know that this is "Everybody knows this" reason why Civil war started.
But honestly I do not believe in human generosity. I'm more on the War are started for economical reason site of the fence.
Also they end slavery but then threat blacks like sub humans?
I want stress it out. I want to know the truth. And I'm willing to change my opinion.
So what was real reason behind Civil war? What get union and confederation to fight each other, and were was a abolition movement in all of this?

My understanding is that there isn't a hard geographic line that separates the countries, so it's not as simple as two entirely different cultures settling on either side of a mountain range or whatever. And my impression has always been that the whole island was basically one culture group before the Romans came along.

I am also under the impression that at various points, the King of Scotland has paid fealty to the King of England, and that this was before nationalism was really a thing, so what makes the King of Scotland a king, and not a particularly powerful baron?

Can it be as simple as the Roman's didn't conquer Scotland, so that started a cultural divergence that just kept going?

Let's say I'm a Londoner who wants to take a trip to Rome circa 1300 AD. What would the most common modes of travel be? How long would my journey take? Would there be an inn to stay in every night, or would I spend most nights sleeping outside? What sorts of dangers might I face?

I hope my question isn't too vague, but I've been wondering what sort of an experience travelling would be during the middle ages.

Just wondering what some cons were for the British empire?

I was watching a documentary called Soviet Storm, which happens to be russian-made so it might not accurately represent the Wehrmacht's late war capabilities, but it seems that no assaults were mad by army group south other than a few skirmishes by mountain regiments.

Because they could work iron well enough to make weapons and armor, so what technologies or techniques were they lacking? And why was Japan able to manufacture their own guns?

In regards to how modern shipping and globalization, how long did it take to build the infrastructure to support it?

Considering today's the 155th anniversary, I think I'm within the time rules! :P

I heard that it was due to Castro's regime supporting anti apartheid in South Africa. Is this true? If it is please elaborate if not please be specific.

Sorry for the vague title, but I could not think of the best way to phrase my question. How did national park systems come to exist and then persist in African countries with a history of colonialism, war, government corruption, and poverty? It seems to me like national park systems would be a result of a stable government/economy. As someone who knows very little of African history any insight would be greatly appreciated.