Did it ever occur to, say, the Ancient Egyptians? Greeks? And did the idea of flying saucers and 'alien technologies' evolve alongside modern human technological advances or exist prior?

The standard playing cards in use today (clubs,diamond,spades,hearts and royals) seem like they would have been made to be played for a specific game. What game were they made to play originally?

The Tenth Man strategy says that if nine people agree on a particular course of action, the tenth person must, in the context of the strategy, take a contrary approach so that all alternatives can be considered.

What are the origins of this rule? How far back does it go? Are there any primary sources (or quotes from prominent persons) related to the rule?

Did it seem weird to anybody considering nazis and communists had been at each other's throats for the last several decades?

I've been very interested in the centenary of WWI and brushing up on that era. I especially find the diplomacy of the time and the run-up to war to be fascinating, but I have never seen a satisfying explanation for Germany's motivations, especially given its role in escalating the conflict. For some of the other powers, potential gains from victory in an all-out European conflict are more obvious. France hoped to re-take Alsace and Lorraine. Austro-Hungary wanted to subdue the Balkan states and eliminate a perceived threat there. Russia wanted influence in the Balkans and possibly control over the Bosporus. But what would Germany have gained? Did they have plans for concessions they would seek in the event of victory?

Eating out in the US today seems like more of a luxury than films and literature set before about 1980 or so tend to portray it. They seem to imply that it was much more common to eat most meals outside the home. My first question is whether or not that's an accurate portrayal, and my second is how much more affordable it would have been to do so.

Never studied the Vietnam war before and I'm looking for sources that I could use as evidence. Edit: Failed*

Despite being a great colonial empire, the Spanish held no part of India when the British,the French and the Dutch controlled various parts of India. India was a very profitable colony to the Europeans yet the Spanish didn't colonize it. Why?

It seems like many basic textbooks or popular histories only cite these luxury items, but never make much reference to things that might actually fuel development and an economy like minerals, wood, technology, ore, and other goods.

Any tips from the pros? Any topics I come up with seem like a waste of time or unfeasible.

How do you do it?

I have known several Buddhists and/or practitioners of meditation who claim that the rise in, "consciousness," brought about my Buddha's teachings/meditation endangered the status quo of India, making people less willing to tolerate abusive leaders, or hereditary leaders at all, and making them less willing to spend time producing taxable wealth, and generally being more tolerant to outsiders and less wiling to wage war.

They claim that there were, "wars," to suppress this enlightenment.

Is there any historical truth to this?

I have several questions on the subject, if you could answer them it would be greatly appreciated.

1. Following 1066, Englishmen would eventually become the majority within the Varangian guard. How did they get along with Norse, Swedes, Danes and Icelanders? I had read that they were segregated, is that true?
2. Did they solely hail from England? I had read that Anglo-Saxon exiles formed communities in Russia, and Germany and that many young men from these communities would go on to serve in the guard. Is that true?
3. How similar were they to other Scandinavian peoples that served in the guard, weren't Northumbrians very similar to Danes?
4. Did the conquering Normans make any attempt to prevent Englishmen from joining the guard?
5. Did the Englishmen have any impact on the armament and military tactics of the guard?
6. How did the English view service in the guard?
7. Where did most Englishmen go following service, did they return to the small Anglo-Saxon communities they had formed, or did they often return to England? If they returned to England, how were they treated by nobles upon return?
8. What languages were they required to speak. Did they solely speak Anglo-Saxon (Old English)? Or did they speak Old Norse, as well as Greek and maybe Latin?

Thanks!

For example, didn't the fragmentation of Africa into nation states hurt relations between African peoples?

EDIT: Thank you all for such insightful comments! The main reason I ask the question is, and please correct me if I am wrong, Africa is chock full of resources. I'm talking about arable land for food, raw materials, etc. Yet the common imagery today (that also purports it's been this way forever) is that Africa is poverty stricken. I read somewhere that the average African makes less than $5 dollars a week. How is this possible for a land so rich in resources? Is it primarily because Europeans have exploited, manipulated, and controlled the fragmented regions of Africa? Have the indigenous African people become so bamboozled by European colonization that they are at a total loss?

I know the attitude towards the king could change dramatically based on food shortages, wars, etc, but I'm wondering how the average European peasant in the medieval era would view their king. Especially during "peace time" in the kingdom.

Were they generally critical and blamed the king for their problems like many modern day Americans? Did they actually view the king as a connection to god? Did they even know or care who he is?

I'm asking here because it's a lot harder to find primary sources about a simple peasant than some noble ruler or king.

According to wikipedia there are arround 88 000 Portuguese living in Luxembourg. That seems quite high for a country with aroun 550 000 people. They even have a Portugues radiostation. So why is that, why did a lot of Portugese go to Luxembourg and when?