I'm an European young adult, I don't have much knowledge of American history, but I'm attending a university course about Anglo-American Literatures and were indirectly studying the issue of slavery of African Americans. I've studied how trafficking worked "in practice", such as slave ship matter, but I don't know much beyond that.

If any of you know the answer to my question, I would be very curious to know more about the matter. Thank you.

Some of the popular gladiators would earn quite some money from what I have heard. What exactly did they spend this on? Could they get new and better armour? Or just some decorations for their armour?

*other Southeast Asian countries of the time so Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

I though the group was formed by and consists of white Protestants, so why do they burn an iconic symbol of Christianity?

Why is he rarely referred to using his father's family name? Likewise, his offspring are "Mountbatten-Windsor", not "Glücksburg-Windsor".

Just to add to my confusion, according to Wikipedia, his sisters are referred to as belonging to the Glücksburg family.

Why are they shunning the Glücksburg name? It's a more prestigious royal house than Battenberg/Mountbatten.

Like I know some of the nazis were able to escape to South amrica and flee from the allies but why didn't some of them go to to Japan? Like Japan was an axies nation that were allied with Germany and supported them. The nazi genrals didn't know of the bomb yet and they had some avaible recorces left, so why didn't they?

Forgive me if the question may be a little confusing, but I was wondering what warfare was like with the early introduction of muskets and guns. Would an army still field archers and 'knights' with melee weapons like swords and pikes en masse, then just have the musketeers are a supplemental/support force? How did the traditional weapons of bows, pikes, swords, etc. fit in with the new advent of gunpowder in warfare?

There's a rumour going around the internet that claims that the Persians did not have slaves, and that they had developed a civilization superior to that of their contemporaries. In what degree is this true?

There are a few notable medieval republics, and I was wondering how democratic they truly were?

For example, how much could a regular citizen contribute to the process of electing the ruler?
By medieval republics I am referring mainly to Venice, Genoa and Novgorod.

They may be different, but I'm really interested about how much electoral power would a peasant or city dweller or merchant hold?

I teach some secondary school history in the UK and managed to get myself into hot water with the Head of History over a debate I had with a student, whom I agreed with. At the end of my lessons I give students time to question what we learned that day. One student asked why we look at the Angevin Empire as an early British Empire when William was Duke of Normandy, so surely it would be Normandy/French Empire? In that when we talk about Henry V we talk about getting French areas back, but weren't the UK invaded by French Normans?

In fairness I agreed with him, but as a non-history specialist (I'm a geography teacher) said I'd check with Head of History (as she is specialist) and let him know more next lesson. Head History was really mad at me and said I'd miss-taught the lesson and I would have to apologise to the class for misinforming them. She did not explain why I or student were wrong. I'm just trying to teach students fair history and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why.

Can someone help me out as I'm confused?

Like many military history fans, I played the popular tank combat games and I've always been wondering how long did a tank stay in combat before getting destroyed.

In popular tank games, you can destroy a new tank every single minute you are in the game if not more if you are a skilled player.

When thinking about it, if this was even close to realistic, this means 50 000 or so sherman tanks produce by the US wouldn't last very long. If tanks were getting destroyed at the rate that we see in video games, the 50 000 shermans wouldn't have lasted a week.

So, how did tanks stayed in combat for so long? Is it that it takes a lot more to destroy a tank than depicted in video games? If tanks can be taken out so easily, how would tanks even last longer than a day?

The Persians are known to have been the integrators of the medical texts from both Indian and Greek traditions. Many of the Persian ideas that came to China through the beginnings of the Silk Road were readily integrated with the Traditional Chinese Medicinal doctrines of the time. I might be wrong, but it seems that the Persians had access to a lot of the medical texts before the establishment of the Silk Road. How could they possibly have had access to them?

Edit: Also, if possible, please provide sources--

I have had multiple family members claim that there are many documents from Rome that prove that Jesus existed and that all his feats in the Bible(Turning water into wine, wallking on water, rising from the dead, etc.) actually happened. However, none of them have ever been able to tell the names of these documents or where to find them. While I do still believe in Jesus, I also doubt the existence of these documents. But before I jump to conclusions I was curious if anyone knows if these documents exist?

I know multiple stories of friends' ancestors who were exiled to Siberia pre-1917 and, as far as I understand, just sort of walked to China and got on a boat to California. How common was this? Were there guards you had to escape, or did the empire not really care so long as you didn't come back west?

I assume that the US didn't put all Italians and Germans in camps because of the sheer size of their population but why was it still 10x less than the amount of Japanese-Americans put in camps?

Where might I find a publically accessible, by purchase or free online, English translation of Olympe de Gouges' primary documents: Letter to the People or aka Project for a Patriotic Fund (1788); Patriotic Remarks (1789); and Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791)?

I am not trying to inflame anger. I know that debate exists about how old Aisha was when she married Muhammad, but from what I understand there is a strong tradition that she married him when she was 6 years old and that he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old.

Was there such an minor overlap between critics of Islam who both knew about that tradition and objected to such practises? If so, does that suggest that the tradition was obscure to critics of Islam prior to the 20th century, or that opposition to sex with 9-year-old girls was rare among critics of Islam prior to the 20th century? Or both?

I am particularly curious because other anti-Islamic traditions arose about Muhammad, based upon ahadith (his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adoptive son's wife) and not based upon ahadith (the anti-Islamic canard in medieval Europe that Muhammad died while drunk).