For instance, could a pirate bring in some Egyptians or Chinese and sell them as slaves?

The words "Crusader" is often used in complementary ways. An activist can be a "crusader for justice", for example. "Inquisitor" is usually used in a less complementary way, but can be neutral--for example, Google turned up a software package called "Inquisitor".

But... I'm a little familiar with the atrocities committed by actual historical crusaders and inquisitors--pogroms, sacks and invasions by the crusaders and the torture and burning at the stake by the inquisitors in Spain. We wouldn't say "kudos to Bob for being a real Gestapo in preventing inefficiency here at Megacorp."

It's of course outside the scope of this sub to make declaratory judgments about the ethics of the modern use of these terms; really, I'd like to decide for myself how appropriate I think the use of these terms is. So, what should I know about the history of cruelty attached to these words?

A few specific questions:

What portion of soldiers in the historical crusades were complicit in the sacks/pogroms in Europe?

Was crusader warfare in the Middle East war-as-usual for the time, or did it cross lines usual in intra-Europe warefare?

Are there notable historic examples of Crusaders or Inquisitors doing good that should not be forgotten, just as we should not forget the bad behavior?

How usually cruel was the Spanish Inquisition, in the history of Inquisitions?

How pervasive was cruel behavior in the Spanish Inquisition? Was it a widespread bloodbath, or is it merely the intensity of cruelty attached to a few cases that gives it such a bad reputation?

Since the end of the Crusades proper and the transition of the Inquisition into a theological office rather than actual heretic-hunters, how have the terms been used in ways that might affect their appropriateness as compliments today?

The fatal flaw was that a letter never became itself in the code. Combined with the Germans quite often using set formats for messages meant that the Allied code breakers could make educated guesses regarding some words. Are the last 2 words "Heil Hitler" or the title of the report from the Uboats at the start of the day the German term for "Weather Report" for instance? Things like that. From that they built a machine called "The Bombe" to crack the messages and discover the rotor settings each day (the rotor settings changed each day).

Was there a reason why the Germans either didn't notice the flaw or didn't think it was a problem? Were they too overconfident due to there being 158 quintillion different code settings?

I realize this is an oddball question, and this might not be the right sub.

I'm looking for audio of the radio announcement of prohibitions repeal on December 5th, 1933, spoken by Undersecretary of State William Phillips.

Google is dry, and thats the extent of my abilities! Any suggestions?

I have recently been doing some research on the "closet tax myth" (one version being that homes had smaller or no closets because houses were taxed by room in the United States from the 17th-19th centuries). Do any of you know how or why this myth began? Or if there is any truth to it? Also, are there versions of this myth in countries other than the United States? Thank you!

So I've been reading about nationalism pretty extensively lately (mainly as it pertains to post-1600 Japan) and it seems that modern nationalism is really hard to define. I wanted to ask the learned users of this sub about it. What is a modern nation state? ie. What if anything is different about 18th century France that makes it more of a nation state than 12th century France? What about in other, non-European, parts of the world? Did Han China fit the idea of a modern nation state or did that have to wait for the 1911 revolution, or a later dynasty?

It seems that in modern times coins are worth less than bills. Why is that? Bills are just pieces of paper and cotton, and coins are made of actual metal. Why is this? When did this happen?

With so many soldiers arriving on boats only to get shot as soon as the doors opened, wouldn't at least a modest bombing of the beach be advisable?

I've heard that quote a few times, but I can't seem to find a source for it. Is there any accuracy to the statement? Obviously, you can't reduce the whole war down to a single sentence, but is it massively erroneous?

EDIT: and please, does anyone know the source of the quote?

The Wikipedia article makes it sound that, while it's still controversial, most researchers have concluded it's not a fake (or at least the inscription genuinely is old). I was wondering if this accurately reflects current thought on it, or if the article's biased one way or the other.

Any other info you have on the ossuary would be of interest as well. For example, assuming it is real and Jesus did exist, what would be the odds that it'd be the ossuary of Jesus' brother anyway? Would it be common to find brothers named James and Jesus whose father was Joseph, or what?

Has any Monarch, after peacefully abdicating their throne, tried to take it back or been returned to the throne?

When the Archers long bows were in need of replacing, the original would be burnt in a tradition that would signify sending the bow to hell, where it would wait for the arrival of the archer. Circa 100 years war.