Would just stealing an apple from a market stall justify crucifixion?

Would they have stolen something more valuable like a horse?

Would they be repeat offenders?

Were there any general standards of punishment that applied empire-wide, or was the punishment entirely determined by the whim of the local governor?

What was the lowest ranking government official who could order a crucifixion?

The Nazis considered themselves the superior race of man, they intended to kill all Jewish people over the globe or just in their territories? What other ethnicities or races does the Final Solution include? Did they intend to go after the Japanese one day, considering that the Japanese also considered themselves the superior race? Did the Nazis intend of wiping out every non German ethnicity? Did they allow some white people? I know Hitler respected Britain a lot, would he consider them in his plan? How far did his plan go?

What are the most accurate resources to learn Indigenous history from a non-colonial point of view?

I was wondering what was the extent of the people who fled to the Eastern portion of the Empire following the West's fall in 476A.D.

Aside from well-known refuges such as Venice, did the majority of the commoners choose to stay? Were there any major incentives to stay or leave?

As for the aristocracy, did they lose their wealth to the Germanic people? If they did flee to the east, is there any connection between them and the aristocracy of the Byzantine empire? If they stayed in the western kingdoms, what became of them by the medieval times?

It's very common in shows like Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings to see lords and even commoners wear capes, but was it as common as pop culture makes it seem? Did capes serve any sort of purpose or were they more of a fashion statement?

So, I'm curious about this expedition because I'd like to think the Athenians could've taken Sicily if they didn't get arrogant about it. But I'm also curious what are the other specific factors that made the Athenians fail this expedition.

I've seen very different opinions, ranging from "greatly exaggerated" to "backbone of the Third Reich".

Also, I'd love a recommendation for a good, academic audio book on the subject.

Thanks.

Maybe I'm basing my conclusions on all the wrong assumptions. This question arises out of my experience with interacting with Romanians WITHOUT knowing much of their backstory.

The little I do know is that Romania is a Latin country with Russian/Eastern European influences but not Slav like its neighbours. Don't know more than that.

So in my interactions with listening to Romanians speaking MANY TIMES I've been confused between strangers speaking Romanian and Italian (I don't speak either). These two languages are so incredibly similar to the untrained ear that Romanian can easily pass off as Italian if you're not listening carefully. However if you do focus then yes you can probably tell - Italian seems 'softer' and also Romanian has loan words like 'Da' etc which are obviously not Italian.

Another thing is physically, many Romanians could pass off as Italian. I think a Romanians could quite easily assimilate into Italian culture if he/she wanted to.

Now I'm not saying that Romanians are Italians but of course there's something there that makes them closer than, say, a Croat, Albanian, Slovene, or even a Frenchman/woman because these countries are actually quite unique.

So at the end of my long and rambling essay, I wanted to ask:

a. in history (i.e. Risorgimento, Soviet occupation of Romania, drawing of the Iron curtain...) has there ever been a conscious effort on part of Italians or Romanians to somehow reach out to the 'Other' as some sort of long lost cousin?

b. during the Risorgimento or maybe even before that, was there ever any mention, even a passing one, of incorporating a far away (though strongly Latin) nation like Romania into the Italian polity?

Thanks!

From my understanding, many German citizens knew that the Jewish concentration camps existed, and other countries knew about Germany's persecution of Jewish people, at least as far as political policy goes. At what point were the atrocities fully realized by the rest of the modern world? Was it possible that people of the time simply did not see it as the same atrocity as we do today? For example, is it possible that at least some of the general reaction that is considered to be appropriate to the Holocaust is more of a modern perspective, since it is now much easier to separate ourselves from the people alive at that time?

I'm interested in as much details as you can give me. I'd like in depth stuff about how it started, intrigues on Byzantine court, crusaders organization and leaders...

Thank you all for your time.

The ancient Greeks are famed for their contributions to mathematics, however algebra would not be invented for roughly another 1500 years. How did the Ancient Greeks solve complex math problems if they did not have the ability to use variables in equations ? Pythagorean theorem for example, as it is taught in schools, today uses basic algebra to find the length of the sides of a triangle. If you have two values you can easily solve for the 3rd , however if the Greeks did not have an understanding of variables, how was it possible they could solve such an equation ?

Was the UK actually particularly far ahead of comparable states, like Prussia, France or the U.S.A? Is that even a question that can be answered, given the fuzzy line of industrialisation?

Let me explain the term first - carroballista was a Roman wagon-based small ballista that could easily and quickly be transported with the help of horses. This meant that this was pretty much a mobile light artillery piece (if we can call anything artillery before the invention of gunpowder). However, I could never find anymore information about it - how often was it used and how effective it was. Moreover, I never found any mention of using it in the medieval period. The most logic assumption would be that it was not cost-effective and probably unhandy for medieval levy-conscripted armies compared to professional Roman armies. My question is - were they used more often and if not why was it the case?

I feel when thinking about Cold War history, not much attention is given to average soviet citizens and their lives. What were some common hobbies among the citizens? Similar to this, did they have non-political events to go to, such as sports, movies, theatre etc.?

In 1928 as part of the secularising reforms of Ataturk the Turkish language began to be officially expressed in a Latin rather than an Arabic script. Was this the first attempt to write Turkish in the Latin alphabet or did the idea have a longer history? Did it cause any issues with younger generations unable to understand past texts? And was there any widespread resistance to the move? Are there any outliers today who maintain that Arabic letters are more effective when writing the language?

I'm in the midst of re-reading Alfred P. Smyth's translation - the reference is found in Chapter 76, here's the sentence:

...the attacks of the Pagans and the daily illnesses of his body, did not leave off from presiding over the government of the kingdom; engaging in every art of hunting; instructing all his goldsmiths and craftsmen, falconers, hawk-handlers and dog-handlers ...

Did "falconarios" and "accipitrarius" represent two different branches or "arts" of Falconry? How were they different?

I was reading a short piece on WW 2 and that Churchill wanted to try and keep as much of the war as possible in the Mediterranean in order to keep Axis resources away from the British Isles.
The article went on to state that Churchill wanted to invade the Isle of Rhoades but, General Marshall of the US said "no US soldier would set foot on the island."

I have to ask what was on the island that Churchill wanted and why didn't Marshall want to go in ?