I know that Aristotle and Plato play undeniably instrumental roles in recorded philosophy. However, I feel like Plato’s writings influenced Rome ever since they took Greece, mostly because Rome just absorbed everything and made it their own. No copyright laws in ancient conquest ;) Is it possible that the Roman Empire was the manifestation of Plato’s Republic? I know that he has split the state is symbolism to teach the tripartite soul, but was the Roman Empire have been that Republic? If so/not so, could you please expound on the historical contexts of application?

I presume confederate citizens were repatriated after the Civil War, however wouldn't the people who had been born in the Confederacy be later considered to have been born in a foreign country? Did this ever come up as a controversy during a presidential campaign?

Do we have any sources of what Christians (especially in the nobility) who didn't go on the Crusade thought of the First Crusade? Also, what did people think when it was a success? Were people surprised that it was successful? Were there celebrations etc.? Were there different opinions based on different political, religious, or philosophical perspectives within Christendom?

Mercury used to be used to treat syphilis and, as far as I know, was also commonly used to treat other ailments. While this treatment certainly wasn't nearly as effective as modern medicine, was it effective at all? Would a person treated for syphilis with mercury fair better than someone not treated at all?

I’ve been thinking about fascism, and why it’s so difficult to define and pin down, and I think part of the reason is hardly anybody openly describes themselves as fascists. It’s a label derogatorily (righteously, but derogatorily) applied to those who’s confluence of racism, nationalism and hardline law and order inclinations begin to resemble fascism. Or, perhaps put otherwise, there are card carrying communists just about everywhere in the world, but nobody is a card carrying fascist. It seems to be an ideology people slip into out of fear/greed/stupidity and not an espoused belief system (again, as opposed to communism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism and conservatism).

But I don’t know if this has always been true throughout history. So I ask: did the Nazis— or any far-right political party— openly consider themselves a fascist party/movement?

I'm guessing that I wouldn't appear a complete foreigner to someone like Shakespeare. But how about Chaucer, or the writer of Beowulf. When did Modern English in an understandable form by a current living layperson come about?

It seems to me that the dictatorship in Nazi Germany was quite in line with the desires of the people and system supporting Hitler- basically, people in the preferred group had rights but nobody else did (though that’s a simplification obviously). Meanwhile, it seems like Stalin’s dictatorship was not really a logical outcome of the ideology he claimed to represent (I.e. a communist system wherein all products of the economy were shared). Is that accurate? If not, how am I thinking about this incorrectly?

• they were far smarter than to believe in such childish tales,so they made them to not be bored and to prove they could create such stories?

A lot of theories exist regarding the Bronze Age collapse in Greece: the Dorian invasion, climate change, overpopulation, the Sea People, internal strife/uprising. If I am not mistaken, the Dorian invasion is now rendered the least probable cause for a variety of reasons. The destruction of palaces shows a southern trend (from Thebes to Pylos) in a 70-year period. Scripts from Pylos state they were preparing for war, but without specifying the enemy. Could anyone elaborate on the causes of the collapse? I find it wildly intriguing.

In terms of the causes, means, duration and results.

Thank u for your time.

Basically what the title says, my question concerns the reaction(s) of Hitler’s government. Did anyone in the German government express anger or frustration because of the actions made by their Japanese allies? Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States was not directly involved in the fighting. This preemptive attack was designed to neutralize the U.S. naval forces, would it logically follow then that Germany would express consternation for committing a largely unprovoked attack against the United States?

Mary Beard in SPQR alludes to a a number of contemporary statues of Roman generals holding globes, including a colossal statue of Pompey currently in the Palazzo Spada in Rome, as a symbol of Romans as world conquerors. Were the ancients not flat-earthers?

The idea was that in the Middle Ages, there were far more religious and feast days than legal holidays today, a lack of work during the winter months when the fields lay barren, and the typical worker would not spend a full eight+ hours every day of the week ending to crops and livestock. Taking an average of 2,000 hours (50 weeks at 40 hours per week) for a 'modern American worker', is the meme I saw utter rubbish, or is there some truth to its claims?

What is Britains perspective on the American Revolution? I heard that they dont really teach about it in their schools like we do in the U.S.. It makes sense since they have longer history than we do and it was more impactful for us than them. I was just wondering what the differences are between what the U.S. says that happened and what the British say happened. Resources would be great to reference too if you know of any.

Other advanced ancient civilizations have relied on large river systems, for example:

• Mesopotamian civilizations rely on the Euphrates River and the Tigris River.

• Egyptian civilization relies on the Nile River.

• Indian civilizations rely on the Indus River and the Ganges River.

• Chinese civilizations rely on the Yangtze River, the Yellow River and the Pearl River.

In contrast:

• Pella, the capital of the Macedonian kingdom, was situated on the non-navigable Vardar River.

• Ambrakia, the capital of the Epirote kingdom, was situated on the barely-navigable Arachthos River.

• Sparta was situated on the non-navigable Evrotas River.

• Rome was situated on the barely-navigable Tiber River.

• Etrurian cities were built in the basin of the barely-navigable Arno river.

• Utica was built on the barely-navigable Medjerda River.

• Tyre, Byblos, Syracuse, Athens, Carthage, Thebes and Knossos were not built near rivers.

It also makes me wonder why:

• Ancient Greece's most powerful civilization didn't arise on the Haliacmon River or the Maritsa River.

• Ancient Italy's most powerful civilization didn't arise on the Po River or the Adige River.

• Ancient Phoenicia's most powerful civilization didn't arise on the Orontes River.

The incident I'm referring to is a potential visit by Yahya ibn al-Hakam al-Bakri al-Jayyani, speculated in Nizar F. Hermes' book The Moor’s First Sight: An Arab Poet in a Ninth-Century Viking Court (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). Granted, I appreciate this particular encounter may not have happened, but any information on how these visits manifested themselves would be massively appreciated.

What are the factors that lead to this divergence in outcomes between USSR and China?

Since they are slaves and are unpaid, where would they get the money to purchase their freedom? And was there anything stopping a master from just taking the money and keeping them enslaved since they are his "property"?