I wanted to do the question for Mesoamerica, but alas our rules say no. And with the recent trend of medical related questions associated with the Mexica I thought I'd add another.

From antiquity to the modern day, what have theologians said about Mark 3:37? Did anybody believe that it meant Adam and Jesus were of an equal godliness?

So I'm in the Honolulu airport and I stop and take a look at a display about the nisei soldiers, when I spy a large photograph captioned as "Gen. Mark Clark, commander of the 5th Army, inspects nisei soldiers with Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy." The secretary is wearing a khaki shirt, trousers and black shoes and tie, with what I'd call a khaki garrison cap (the folded rectangular headwear). No distinguishing insignia. I'd never seen a civilian head of an armed service wear a uniform like that, other than Churchill. Any ideas what's going on? I'd go get a pic buty flight is about to leave.

EDIT: Got the name of the secretary wrong; should be Frank Knox.

Obviously you don't need tanks or B-17s for occupation duty... were plans being made to use them against Japan prior to Hiroshima?

Was it entirely military men who participated in campaign, or did families, farmers, and craftsmen travel as well?

So I've just watched a video that listed "5 gay armies in history". The first three I already knew about: Samurais, Greeks and The French Foreign Legion.

The next two, however, I've never heard of- Islamic warriors(Mamelukes, Janissaries etc.) and Celts. Was there a great number of homosexual acts going in these groups? I know they wouldn't have considered themselves gay, but did they have a lot of gay sex?

Obviously slaves were often beaten horrifically, and often to the point of death -- and this was perfectly legal. But were there any laws designed to limit abuse of slaves, or were they truly considered property just the same as furniture and livestock, with the owner granted rights to do literally anything, up to and including wanton destruction?

It's easy to conjure up a hypothetical scenario where some psychopath buys up slaves with the express purpose of murdering them, and I can only imagine this sort of thing would shock even the consciences of antebellum slaveowners. So were there any limits on "excessive" abuse?

I get the feeling that the answer here is probably -- "in theory, yes; in practice, no." But I'm curious.

I had a conversation with my daughter yesterday about hypocrisy and propaganda, and I realized I couldn't discuss the US government's position on drugs without sounding like a crazy person. I'm not entirely sure where I've learned the "facts" that I kinda sorta know.

I have no patience for conspiracy theorists, so I'm not sure where to begin. Much as I love documentaries, I would prefer to have written works for reference. Help?

English is obviously the major one, but I've heard German was spoken by a significant number of people in Pennsylvania, for example. If there isn't a lot of variation, I'd be interested to hear about regional dialects of English that we know about from that time, or important Native American languages, if their distribution is interesting. Really I'd be happy to hear information about any time from 1760-1800.

I am wondering about the dividing line historians generally place between when the Eastern Roman Empire can be thought of as more "Byzantine" than classically "Roman". Obviously there would be some debate regarding this as the distinction is more so academic than anything else.

Where do most historians put the break? Is there a majority opinion on this? Are there dissenters? Thanks in advance for your time!

This question was inspired by the thread on r/badhistory talking about Rome, India, and China's economies in the 1st century.

It seems to me that we have quite a lot of historical texts from classical antiquity (e.g. Herodotus, Polybius, Tacitus), and we also know quite a bit about Warring States and Han Dynasty China (e.g. Sima Qian, Spring and Autumn, Book of Han). By comparison, the same period in Indian history seems very poorly documented - we don't really have much from the Maurya dynasty or the Kushan Empire, for example.

Am I missing something here? Are there some sources I'm not aware of, or did Indians just not see a need to write or preserve the annals of that period? Or was the lack of a unified Indian state the issue?

Not knowing much about aviation history, I'm defining "early airplanes" very broadly, as being any wooden-framed propeller plane. Historians, please correct my definition, in your replies.

What altitudes and speeds were these planes used at? What for? What were the most common causes of crashes? How often did the plane survive? How often did the pilot survive? What did the crash sites look like?

It's a broad topic, I know - please feel free to narrow it, based on your expertise.

I am assuming that wealthy nobles might hire someone to take the letter there, but how would they get there? How would they know where to go? Would the person give a messenger extra money for tolls/transportation/etc.? Say the Frankish King sending a letter to Rome

I'm referring to why they were independently similar: I'm wondering if there are interesting similarities in the justification for such ideas amongst different, separate societies. E.g. Chinese emperors, Roman emperors, Egyptian pharoahs, rulers of Maya/Inca, rulers in South East Asia

I'm considering choosing this as a project but am unsure if it was the case. It seems like it may be relevant given how many veterans sought the brotherhood/companionship present MCs after the Vietnam war in the USA.

I understand it's a strange question but I would appreciate any insight.