In comparison to American Indians, The Mayans and Aztecs seemed much more advanced building pyramids and their knowledge on astronomy and South American people were building structures we still can't explain were made during their time period. Why didn't the Native Americans ever reach that peak or interacted with them?

I am going to write a short paper on Karl Marx's work as an economist and I cannot really find any good sources on the the social and economic structure in Germany during the time when he was alive. I am trying to find some background into why he felt there was a need for change. Any information and links to sources will be helpful.

In the end of the film "Fury" the protagonists come upon a marching squad of SS soldiers who marched to a song. I have failed to find a song that reminds me of it. Will post link if I find it.

It's been suggested that Zhukov was safely out of the way on the Soviet–Japanese border at the time. Was there more to it that that?

GW was very well off with a big plantation, slaves and lots of money. So that brings the question, WHY did he risk his life and losing all the things he had. Even if the taxes were ridiculous he was well off enough to not really care about them.

Do historians know who Elise is and what relationship she and Beethoven had?

1. What was the fate of the Byzantine people after 1453? Were they all killed, sold into slavery, or able to live in peace?

2. What does it mean to be 'Byzantine', when & how did that term come to be? How did the Eastern Roman Empire become to be known as the Byzantine Empire?

3. How/when did the Eastern Roman Empire switch to being a Greek dominant oriented language instead of using Latin?

4. Why did the Byzantine Empire switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church instead of Roman Catholic Church?

I would like to know some things about the Indian Army (1903-1947), namely:

• How was language handled, considering that India has a great number of languages and (as far as I'm aware) a large number of officers were actually white British or born in India to white British parents?

• What was the position of white British officers in the army? Were they a majority in the officer class? How were they received by the native soldiers? Were they considered in any way different to those of equal rank in the British Army?

Over drinks last night some friends and I were discussing past wars and whatnot. My Japanese friend started talking about how unfairly Japan was treated, how terrible the US treated them throughout the war, etc.

I kindly pointed out that the US wasn't even involved in the war until Japan committed a war crime and attacked us with no declaration of war. He then proceeded to argue that the US was well-known to be on the brink of emerging into war anyways, and that nuking Japan twice in response was ridiculous. His rationalization that the US was going to enter the war anyways and deserved to be attacked kind of puzzles me, simply because my understanding of it is that we were only going to possibly intervene because Japan was looking at invading our allies. It almost seems ridiculous to suggest that Japan was only acting on anticipation of an attack on them when it was their actions that were bringing about the need for intervention in the first place. To me, that's like a bully pushing your friend around, then punching you in the face because you suggest you might help your friend out, and then another person justifying the bully's decision to punch you in the face.

My (limited) knowledge of the war is that Japan was possibly bringing the US into the war because they kept attacking/taking over land and people in an effort to expand their domain through attacks on China and other smaller nations. The US was then attacked with a surprise mission in an effort to curb our impending intervention in the pacific. From my perception, while our retaliation was perhaps heavy-handed, wasn't Japan the aggressor and being a bully to a multitude of nations? If people want someone to blame for the bombings of Nagasaki/Hiroshima, should it not be their military leader who brought them into this? Is my understanding of these correct, or am I just a biased American?

Edit - I'm asking a genuine question here, not for a slew of anti-Japanese comments. War generally brings about the worst of people, and I don't think any sides are guilt-free. Just looking for the facts. Thanks

So I've got an assignment to do on the lives of German people in pre-war Germany but my teacher hasn't given us much material to work with so I was wondering if I could get some help from you guys, any help is much appreciated.

So there were many Caesars in Early AD, Nero, Caligula, Claudius, etc. Nearly all of them were murdered, poisoned and what not. Who in there right would take that position knowing that they're likely to be dethroned by someone who wanted the throne more, ie Games of Thrones.

When did someone say, you know what, being a Caesar is basically suicide.

Some people I know seem to dislike/still hate germans (and Germany in general) for what happened. I know that not all of the Germans were pro-nazi. I would like to have some facts about it to prove that the Germans also suffered during Hitlers reign.

PS: excuse my English, I am from Belgium.

For the final in my history class this year, my professor has decided to opt for a game of reenacting the past at the Council of Nicaea. I've been given the role of Meletius and have been struggling against Alexander and the entire anti-Arian faction this entire 'game'. I've been researching, reading books, writing papers, speeches, etc. I feel like I am missing something, as the council has just "voted" for favor of bishop inequality (metropolitan bishops [Alexander] having control). I am hoping a history buff can help me out here and tell me what I'm missing, as I thought I had wrote a pretty convincing speech that would make the game turn in my favor (for bishop equality rather than inequality). Thanks!

I heard a lot of changes were made after their interactions with the mongols and that wars prior to the ones that occured during Sengoku period weren't as bloody, but I don't see many explaining why.

They were said to have fought completely disorganized in the past. During this time, were they more organized and better matched the 'ebb and flow' of Western warfare?

Hello Historians, I apologise in advance for my lack of understanding, but hope that some of you will be able to help with this question.

From my current understanding, during the French Revolution those who supported the monarchy sat on the right and so were known as "right wing", and this who were against it sat on the left and were known as "let wing". I have however been wondering as to why we see Liberalism as "right wing" when it surely would be a leftist ideology?

I also believe that Socialism developed during the French Revolution, and that the Socialists did not support the monarchy. Would this mean that at the time of the revolution both Socialists and Liberals would have been considered left wing, whilst ideologies being fundamentally different?

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, I'm sure i must have missed something very critical out and so my understanding is not quite as good as I had hoped. Any thoughts are very much appreciated.