How did people with different languages and cultures independently develop to count in base-10?

If so, how did volunteers feel about it?

Why is it common knowledge that the Japanese used suicide methods in WW2, but we never hear of other countries using this tactic?

I don't know if this is recent revisionism, but some allege that the KKK is a Christian terrorist organization. Further, from what i've gathered, mainly but probably not exclusively in the U.S. parts of the Christian religion were I think used to justify anti-miscegenation laws and the inferiority of certain races.

I've found scattered of evidence of this, like black people being considered the 'children of Ham' or something. It's not been clear.

Of course the Christian has also been, and perhaps is among the first, basis for interracial and international fraternity, in the beginning it was the only basis for unity among the 30 or 40 nations of the Roman Empire as it was one of the first mass religions. I don't see a reason to debate whether Christianity is a source of unity or divisiveness, it's a source for both, but apparently parts of the bible were used to justify the division of races; just as some are used to persecute homosexuals, and I'd like to know which ones if you know them.

edit: Further, in the show Boardwalk Empire Narcisse, who is a black Christian fundamentalist gangster and leader of the Negro Improvement Association, wipes his hand with a cloth after shaking hands with Arnold Rothstein, a Jew. I'd like to understand why he did that?

Okay, so I know the byzantines thought of themselves as romans, and called themselves so, as rhomanoi, but what about eastern europe? If I was in France in 800 or 1100 and I was talking about the ere would I typically refer to it as the byzantines? The Roman Empire? The Eastern Roman Empire? The Greek Empire? And how would I refer to the people? Would they be greeks, romans, byzantines or east romans?

A guy from the internet said that.

Working on a project, and I can't seem to find this anywhere.

The traditional understanding of Charles I is commonly that he was either a manipulative, duplicitous warmonger who started the Civil War from his belicosity, or a foolish, stubborn, and aloof absolutist who started the war from his refusal to compromise (or a mix of both). In November 2005 Mark Kishlansky wrote a fascinating article in the journal Past and Present, heading it with a quote from William Lilly in 1651 arguing that “For my part I do believe he was not the worst, but the most unfortunate of kings.” His article argued for a complete reappraisal of Charles I, examining evidence that he was actually a conciliatory and trustworthy negotiator, an approachable man of the people who was careful to listen to all his advisors, a clever and thoughtful monarch who was deeply concerned with the peace of his kingdom. This sparked a debate which was printed in Nov 2009 in the same journal between Kishlansky, Clive Holmes, Julian Goodare, and Richard Cust, all three of whom robustly disagreed with Kishlansky. He has also written a book in 2014 outlining his arguments in more detail.

However, I am not aware of the rest of the field of scholarship on the subject. I am interested in what current scholarship on Charles I looks like. Is Kishlanksy a lone voice, or part of a growing movement of Caroline rehabilitators? Do any historians accept Kishlansky’s arguments, or do the majority of scholars still paint Charles I in mainly, or solely, negative qualities?

In histories of Rome it seems that the Republic was so beloved that the Emperors had to pay it lip service and tread very lightly in how they grabbed power. Was the Republic at all popular with the lower classes or just the higher ones?

Is it just because the Vietnam War was a loss (and the Korean War was, I guess, a tie)? They were both fought for basically the same reasons (to protect democratic factions in the country against communist ones).

What exactly counts as slavery, and how do the types of slavery differ - for example, I imagine slavery in the United States was different from that in Ancient Greece, or the Marmalukes.

I'm curious about the level of armour and equipment used by the mercenaries, presumably they still used a spear and shield, but what about helmets, chest armour etc? And how would this compare with the Macedonian phalangites they were fighting?

After a conference on early Chinese imperial history today, the master of conference, who is the director of a local museum, raised a few points which seemed not really backed-up by any proof. I was wondering if it's simply my lack of knowledge that makes me wondering about the truth of those, or if I have some reasons to proceed with caution to such assumptions.

Here are the assumptions, or questions, and I would like to have different point of views on them.

• The 5 Emperors (五帝) are accepted as real by mainstream historians, even though they are not backed up by any contemporary writings (since it wasn't developed yet) but loads of potteries, carvings, etc ... made their existence sure.

• The origin of the Xiongnu (匈奴) people/tribe is, as far as I know, pretty unclear. He however said that after the Shang Dynasty defeated the Xia Dynasty (whose existence itself is very controversial), some Xia people emigrated in what is today Manchuria, Mongolia and Southern China. The Xia people who emigrated in Mongolia mixed with the local people and founded the Xiongnu. Is there any evidence to back this ? It seems extremely far fetched to me.

• During the Qin Dynasty (秦), and more specifically during the rule of Qin Shi Huang Di, he mentioned the extend of his control over the Chinese territory. He mentioned it going as far as Yunnan and Guangdong, pretty much enveloping what is today Southern China except the Tibetan areas. Again, during the Xi Han, he mentioned that Hainan was part of the Chinese Empire (with of course the same claims as for the Qin Dynasty). I have always read and heard that Southern China was far from being in control of the Chinese court before Song, and that Yunnan stayed outside of the grip of China until the Mongols.

How true are those assumptions ?