I often see texts that state something along the lines of: the north was rapidly industrializing and was therefore a wage based economy.

Why didn't the North use slaves in factories? What are the disadvantages of having slaves work in factories? Why use wage labor at all if you could use slaves instead?

I recently came across both these pieces of trivia and was wondering if there has been some research on the influences behind Arthurian legend, especially this matter of Brutus possibly being an illegitimate son of Caeser influencing the character of Mordred.

I want to know if anyone has some resources or can provide information about the etymology, and specifically, transliterations into English of religious names.

For example, if we transliterate "Allah", he becomes God. If we transliterate "Adam" he becomes Man. If we transliterate "Kali" she becomes Black One.

First of all, are these transliterations correct? I don't have good sources for them. Also, are there historical times where transliterations of religious terms into popular vernacular was more common? Basically, I am curious why we don't transliterate terms such as these more often. Any historical insight into this question would be appreciated.

In the American west.

Was it different based on social standing? Location (rural vs city or town)? What time passed between death and funeral?

The more information the better.

Edit: Location specified.

Before the industrial revolution was gold ever used for strictly technological or utilitarian reasons? A modern example would be the use of gold as a conductor in computers. This question excludes traditional uses like currency or decoration.

Much is written about Venice’s naval prowess, but in order to control lands in Italy, Dalmatia, and throughout the Mediterranean an army was necessary. What would this army have looked like?

-Who were the soldiers? Was it a primarily mercenary force, relaying on various forms of condottieri, or was it comprised mostly of native Venetians?

-How “professional” was this army?

-What arms, armor, and equipment were utilized? Where did it come from?

-How was it organized?

-Who were the officers? From what strata of society were they mostly drawn? What education or training (if any) did they receive to prepare them for command?

-What were the tactics employed, especially when facing other Italian forces?

-Was the army less regarded than the navy? Was the navy viewed as the “senior service”?

Even finding its way on the one dollar Afaik wanted the aerican founding fathers a nation that isn't based on religion

Extras: how come religious extremism is becomming so popular recently, specifically christian extremists in the usa

There is strong evidence for inbreeding in ancient egypt and as far as I know in viking culture and in many middle eastern societies. But did the general consensus that inbreeding is bad for humans start to spread during the medevial societies of Europe, or even later? How big was the unwanted inbreeding on the countrysides and in the cities of Europe during the medevial period? Did people even care if they married a cousin or even a sibling?

If this is somehow more common than I suspect, are there any especially interesting or notable examples?

I have travelled within and written on Central Asia, but I do not know much other than vague generalities about the Basmachi Movement. Are there any thorough, narrative accounts of it? I am all for a plurality of sources and perspectives. Books are preferred, although I am also open to articles or any other sources you would recommend (I have access to an academic library).

Was there a Hieroglyph for each name?

I understand that the tax or tariff system was very different 200 years ago. But is there any documentation that shows how much an individual paid total to the government vs. how much they made, on average?

For example, were they aware of scientific inventions (such as the products of the industrial revolution) or of global political changes (such as the formation of the United States of America not too far east of themselves)?

I have some questions about what the city of Rome was like during its period of rapid depopulation (around the 5th or 6th century, I suppose). I don't know how much these can actually be answered, but I'm curious about what we know.

• Did the population tend to decrease the same throughout the city, or did the population consolidate itself (some areas maintain their population while others were completely deserted)? Did the remaining population tend to stay near important public works and the like, while deserting areas further away from them?
• Were old or disused buildings (especially insulae and other buildings made from cheaper materials) demolished regularly, or were there just abandoned buildings everywhere throughout the city?
• Do we know if this had an effect on housing costs? Was there a shift from wealthier insulae inhabitants suddenly being able to afford their own houses?
• There were a lot of people dying or abandoning the city around this time. Say someone with their own house fled or died and didn't have any known family still in the city. Would the house just be abandoned, taken over by squatters, auctioned off by the government, seized by the government and demolished, or what?

Thanks!

around the years 500-300bc or so, what was the benefit of having soldiers suited to marine battles than land battles? With the ships of that time wouldn't they only need to simply steer and launch missiles? Would a regular soldiers easily be able to be adapted into a fleet?

Edit: words

Obviously there was a lot of racist anti-Japanese propaganda in the USA during the war, and I thought it would seem almost inevitable that this would cause a considerable racist attitude among American troops and subsequently lead to a lot of abuse and ill-treatment of the Japanese people.

However, I've recently heard someone claim that because American soldiers had to interact and deal with with ordinary Japanese people on a daily basis during the occupation, they were actually significantly less racist than the general American public. They also claimed there were even cases of soldiers buying large amounts of sweets with their own money to give to Japanese children.

I'd like to hear your views on this.

In broad, history of ideas-type narratives, historians often characterize epochs like the Enlightenment by means of contrast with the naivete of previous times. The idea is that religious narratives or folklore or whatever had such a totalizing grip on the minds of medieval Europeans that the status of these beliefs couldn't even be questioned. Of course there won't have been a large contingent of atheists, but I find it hard to believe average European Christians were entirely unaware of even the possibility of questioning the truth of religion.