Something that I fail to wrap my head around the more I read about is the sacking of Rome in 410. In my eyes, this was the death of Rome, the years after Rome was in a vegetative state (heh) waiting for the coup de grace. However, something I can't seem to grasp is how Rome wasn't in anyway able to defend itself against Alaric and his 3(!) sieges against Rome. It is said that he basically waltzed up to Rome (think it was during the second Siege) virtually unopposed in Italy. Before the third siege, the Pope went up to Ravenna to persuade Emperor Honorious to making peace with Alaric, offering him an Imperial position to make him an ally of Rome again. The pope was accompanied by his barbarian (think Huns?) guards. There were talks about recruiting a massive Hunnic army to fight Alaric, something that never happened. And then of course, after the failed assassination attempt on Alaric during the negations, he would turn, march on Rome and sack it.

How is it that the nation that was able to take Cannae and other devastating defeats in a short time period, which saw an insane drop of the young male population, keep fighting and ending up victorious against an enemy that must have seen like a mythic legend in the form of Hannibal? How did they muster legion after legion against this foe, yet failed in anyway to defend the most holy city (even if it wasn't the capital anymore) in 410 CE? The population of Rome surly was larger in 410 then during the Punic wars, and Rome held much more territory than it did in the past (even if it is now only the Western Empire half and that is also in a state of fracturing). But there are no troops, no significant amount of soldiers or men that are seemingly able to be mustered to defend the State. In the North we have Germanic tribes fight for Rome and its territory against other Germanic tribes. Think it was the Franks that lost a battle for Rome which caused a huge sway of other Germanic tribes to plunge from across the Rhine into deeper Roman territory.

I just can't wrap my head around the fall of Rome. How is it, that we see so many pretenders to the throne in such a narrow time period rise up and fight against Rome, yet when it comes to foreign threats (such as fighting the Huns on the Catalaunian Plains) Rome is seemingly unable to defend itself and relies on mercenaries and settled tribes that in no way have been integrated into the Roman life to fight off the foreign threat, even if it is only for the last few years of its existence.

The Bismarck was only a bit larger than the Hood, but the British freaked out when it launched.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of who the Patricii (aristocrats) and Plebii (Commoners) were, but I've been told that a great number of Romans were actually "Proletarii", poorer than the Plebes and with virtually no political influence. I know the Pleb/Patrician conflict was a huge deal in the early Republic, but what were the Proletarii doing? I know when Gaius Marius reformed the legions he let the Proletarii join and they became the backbone of the legion, but how did they contribute to the roman society prior to that? Is it fair to say they went from politically irrelevant before Marius to the ruling class through the legions under Augustus? How do they compare to medial serfs?

In the movie 1492: Conquest of Paradise there is a scene where Columbus manage to convince sailors that were on the verge of mutiny to continue their voyage. How accurate is this portray, was he anywhere near to mutiny and going back home?

So from my understanding, Sun Quan had a pretty good position in the Southland even before Red Cliffs. I understand that his land was stable, wealthy (at least in comparison to other lords), and the military was in a good state. He also had the natural fortification that the Yangtze provided for defense.

It seems like at the time Liu Bei only had what was basically a remnant force from his defeat in the Battle of Changban, accompanied by whatever forces Liu Qi brought with him from Jiangxia Commandery. Given his situation, It's hard to see what Liu Bei had to offer in the alliance. Even more strange to me is that it was a apparently an envoy from the Southland, Lu Su, who suggested the alliance to Liu Bei in the first place.

I've read the parts of the Sanguozhi biographies of Liu Bei and Sun Quan that speak about that battle, but it doesn't really give any information besides "They allied and fought and Cao Cao retreated and they chased him." Other than that source, I'm not sure where else I can look.

I'm not sure if my premise if flawed. But if not, my question is: Why was it important for Sun Quan to form such an alliance with Liu Bei to resist Cao Cao? Was there something crucial that would make it impossible to resist invasion had the alliance not been formed?

It seems that these days there's broad consensus that most of the 'Germanic barbarians' who invaded the Western Roman empire and became the Franks, Ostrogoths, Vandals and so on were ultimately seeking integration into the Roman Empire, but what about the Huns? Were there also hopes of establishing Hunnic magistri militum, or Hunnic fiefdoms? Were they seeking to create a long-term tributary arrangement a la the Mongols in Russia later on? Or is our source material just too limited?

Was william still a vassal of the french king after taking england?

Preferably around the 1870's-1890's. What was it like for the men working hard labour in shaft mines in the age of "fire in the hole"? What was the structure of command like? Were there mostly independent mines during these times or were larger companies beginning to take hold? Thanks!

Or regional accents like Boston or New York? Did they carry on a slight British accent? I know Alexander Hamilton was from the West Indies, did he have a unique accent?

I remember I bought a little dreamcatcher at some historical fort site in the Midwest, US, that my family visited on vacation in the late 90s. It was a small hooped object wrapped in leather with webbing across the center and delicate feathers hanging down. I hung it on the wall above my bed. The web was supposed to catch the bad dreams and let the good dreams flow down the feathers into the sleeping person's head (me) resting below it. So my question is what's the deal with these objects? Did any Native American cultures actually use dreamcatchers, or are they a complete misappropriation of Native American culture to sell tourist trinkets? If they really were used historically, what indigenous groups used them? What did these objects mean for indigenous people or what religious beliefs/cosmologies do they reflect? If they are not actually Native American, where did they come from and why are they viewed as something authentically Native American?

Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, so how come only a very small subset of the world names their children after said religion's central figure?

For instance, between the north and the south of the Mediterranean Sea.

1. Is there an estimation of the risks?

2. Would this risk be taken into account by a ship-owner?

3. When was a ship assumed to be lost?

Does average beer nowadays tastes better than it was in the past(century or two or five etc. ago). I mean ingredients and recipe wise. And if so how different was the price?