I always found the story of Melchizedek interesting. Judaism was, from my understanding, not formed yet but he was introduced as a priest and Abram tithed to him. Here are the relevant verses from Genesis 14:

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.

20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

So, the relevant questions are:

Where was Salem? What religion was Melchizedek representing or the clergy of? And, most importantly, who is Melchizedek? Was the Old Testament the only ancient text to mention him? Is he important in Islam or other Middle Eastern religions?

Considering there were vast amounts of European Settlements and Indian Tribes during the 16th and 17th centuries, what really makes a real American? It is to my knowledge that the Indians and European settlers had sexual relations. Also, migration patterns seemed to spiral up from South America to America. I may have a conflicted interpretation on this, but it's very interesting to see it discussed.

One specific thing i was curious about is, was circumcised even remotely as popular then as it is today, and how was it viewed.

"Liberal" as in "classical liberalism" for most of the 19th century meant somebody who believed in individual rights, private property, capitalism, and limited government (correct me if I actually am wrong about any of this). Yet for most of the 20th century in the US, "liberal " meant a greater emphasis on a strong role for the federal government, greater regulation of the economy, and generally left wing characteristics.

When did this shift in definitions occur?

To my understanding, countries such as Canada and the Netherlands did keep forces on the ground during the genocide. However, why didn't the remainder of the UN (United States, Great Britain, etc.) do more to stop what was going on?

If yes, do we know when they invented it?

Not predictions like Nostra Domas, I mean like actual projections about what they thought future technology or culture would bring?

The Gloire and the Warrior are both very famous early ironclads. But who came up with the idea, and who was the driving force to get these revolutionary warships built?

From what I read Carthage was able to send messengers to Hannibal as he made his "tour" of Italy. I have a few questions about the messengers themselves.

Did messengers have to disguise themselves once they were on enemy land? Did they travel alone? Once they got to Hannibal's army, how did they prove to be what they were instead of an enemy in disguise? Were there large sections of undefended Roman land that allowed a Carthaginian to simply travel through?

This is, of course, before Syria fell into war. But Jordan has been relatively stable even throughout the Arab Spring. Most Palestinians are not destitute and also have trades which could lead to them being productive members of those respective countries. So what gives? With Israel's expansion into the West Bank why wouldn't these neighboring countries welcome their Arab Brothers. I saw Arab Brothers because they often claim sympathy for the Palestinians under Israel's rule.

I'm just watching a second-series episode of Friends (shown in 1995, but let's ask about the early to mid 90s, rolling Indy-like under the closing door of the 20-year rule, grabbing our hat as we go).

Anyway, Ross's ex-wife Carol announces she's getting married to her girlfriend Susan (who has generally been referred to hitherto in the series as a "life-partner") and, essentially, everyone treats it as if it ain't no thing. About the only person in the episode who is even remotely odd is an 80+ year old woman whose spirit is currently inhabiting Phoebe. That makes a little more sense in context.

Point is, when it aired, I just assumed that gay marriage must be legal in New York and, having seen it again today in the wake of the recent gay marriage debates, it makes me wonder what the situation was back when the episode was made - legally, I assume that it had no force, but how was it seen?

Why do we know so little about the dark ages? yet we know lots of things about times long before them? did people just not write things down as much

Was there a belief in Persian supremacy, or did most educated Persians recognized that Rome was a more successful (or at least more dominant) state than their own?