I was driving recently and thinking about how massive an undertaking the project must have been to get agreed to on a political level, to design and then to build. I have three main questions.

At what level of design did congress sign off on it? What I mean by this is did congress have a bill in front of them that said: we are going to build a large road network that will connect all these cities in a more abstract way. Or did they vote on an already well thought out and designed map of what the project would look like?

How did all these design decisions get made? Some parts of the highway clearly get more traffic than others, I'm sure every little town and city had their own ideas of where the roads should and shouldn't go. How long and who were the main players that made decisions? Were some parties upset about the outcome?

I always hear that a large part of the rational for the project was military, to accomidate the potential need to move lots of troops quickly. Is is possible to assign a percent of how much of the project was for economic reasons and how much was for military?

In short, what was the secret to success for a rock/pop band back in 'the day'? Today it feels (true or not) that pop hits are just straight up manufactured half the time, and we like to think of the oldies as being more authentic, but I'm sure that isn't exactly the case, and the industry pros back in the '60s had plenty of ways to try ensure a 'winner'.

So if a producer found some unknown foursome - or decided to assemble a group, for that matter - what would be the ways in which they could try to get them to the top of the charts? What were the tools of the trade?

[deleted]

I keep hearing conflicting things. I thought he was pretty cool.

[deleted]

I read somewhere that they cut off hands and stuff . But why were they treating them like dirt and how did so many die ?

Hey, as a high school student with a growing interest in history, I'd really like to get my hands on some good books about Byzantine history. They seem like such an interesting mix of the Romans, the Greeks, and Medieval Europe.

I would really appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of some good books on this topic. Thank you guys.

The Achaemenid government was so effective Alexander the Great famously left it mostly in place when he took it over. Later dynasties would do the same; most telling I've seen chalk this up to a quick mention of local autonomy and a great bureaucracy.

But how did the government actually work?

If the king wanted something done, what path did that order take before it was implemented?

What influence or presence would the local governments see from the royal one?

On page 483 of The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Norman Cantor writes:

"Even the apparently unchallengeable position of the Italian cities declined in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The general problems that beset trade and banking were complicated by specific problems in the Orient, where Italy purchased the luxury goods that were the staples of its trade with Europe. The loss of Eastern sources was made almost complete by the conquest of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire in the mid-fifteenth century by the Ottoman Turks. Portugal and then Spain-not Italy-led the search for new routes to the East, which were to revolutionize European trade."

Given the importance of trade for the economic health of the Italian cities, why did they not participate in large exploration projects along with Portugal and Spain, especially after the fall of Constantinople and the loss of their Eastern trade routes?

In some of my research into 17th century Brazil, I keep coming across letters from former soldiers petitioning the crown for honorary titles and membership in various military orders, in exchange for military services. I'm having trouble understanding the motives for these soldiers, did membership in military orders carry purely honorific benefits, or were there any financial benefits (something akin to a pension) for members of military orders in Portugal at this time?

Hello all,

I recently started taking an interest in the history of the soviet union and as I believe is natural I have been more drawn to the parts of its history that include Stalin,I have done some research on books but all I have found so far is either heavily focused on one aspect of his goverment (his crimes or his economical policy or his ideology etc etc) but I have not been able to find a credible work that goes through every aspect of his work as general secretery (1924-1953).Any recommendation is greately appreciated.

This question was inspired by a webtoon I'm currently reading called Miss Abbott and the Doctor in which one of the characters, Rebecca, is lesbian and an African-American during the Victorian Era.

Some frequently made points:

• The Tiger was seemingly infinitely superior to Allied tanks
• It took three major world powers to beat one Germany
• German weapons were overly sophisticated for their time
• Blitzkreig was nearly unstoppable, only limited by supply shortages

Is this rhetoric accurate, or revisionist?

If so, how many times? Also, is it true that with the invention of firearms, the wall became useless?

What was the political structure of pre-Archaemenid and pre-Median Iranian Plateau?

Did it consist of city states like in early Sumer and Assyria, nomadic tribes, or was it inhabitated by highly-urbanized though disorganized tribes like in Levant?