In Classical Athens, around 30,000 citizens were eligible to vote on each issue and decision as it arises. But Thucydides talks of Athens sending out armies of as many as 10,000 citizens* (Pelopennesian War 2.31) not including resident aliens or the citizens in the fleet.

Did the absence of a large chunk of voters ever change the outcome of votes, and could the levy be selected in such a way that influential figures like Pericles could deliberately send groups they knew to be opposed on them out into the field at the time of key decisions?

*Though according to the Landmark version of Thucydides, the 30k were citizens over 30 so perhaps the army was largely/partially of citizens who had not yet come of full voting age?

[deleted]

we heard all kinds of stories crossing Berlin Wall, but I don't recall any significant reports regarding crossing border for the rest of East Germany, can I assume it wasn't as intense and difficult?

In film and TV you regularly see POWs opening parcels or letters from home, or red cross boxes. How did all of this cross the front-lines and actually get to them?

Christianity has many similarities when compared to other ‘rival’ religions at the time such as Mithraism and obviously Judaism. Not only this but Christianity’s preaching and condemning of earthly pleasures and such may seem off putting to many casual observers compared to the numerous cults and what they could offer at the time. What gave it such an advantage earlier on to gain initial followers, so that even today it’s arguably the most widely practiced and influential religion in history?

Communism wants work equality and things to be controlles by the government. Capitalism wants privatized bussiness. (Not going to much into this)

The question is the title.

It's not like people back then could log on to a government network and prove their legal status. In Rome, some citizens sold themselves into slavery, so it's not like proving citizenship proves you aren't a slave.

What's to stop someone in the Roman Empire from grabbing people off the streets of Rome and selling them as slaves in the provinces? Or vice versa? Did this sort of thing happen? What would be the recourse for someone abducted like this? Were free people afraid of losing their freedom like this?

It seems to fit the descriptions, but is this terribly unlikely for some reason?

In the book I’m reading, set in Ireland in 1859, the nurse takes all the patients measurements in inches. The nurse is from England and studied under Florence Nightingale. Is this a mistake an American author made, or did they use inches then in England?

I know vaguely why the US ended up with imperial, but I know nothing else about the development of the differences. The book got me thinking about how different countries ended on different systems.

Thanks in advance!

I want to learn more about Ethiopian history but don't know where to start, what should I read to have a better grasp and understanding of their history?

I am talking about the kind we see in fiction like the faceless men in game of thrones or the Assassins from the Assassins creed video games. Also what happened to them? Are they still around killing people today?

Very mild spoilers about Vikings

In the show Vikings, first season, there is a monk from England that is shocked on how Vikings treat their slaves, they may kill and murder their slaves if they wanted to. where there slaves in England at all? would the same conditions apply to an English slaves?

Sorry for the large span of time, I'm not sure when Vikings does take place.

Edit: from episode 6, it is 8th century

In the "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith discusses the families of the poor as having many children, and that the children often didn't live to adulthood. He also describes the rich as having very few children. The passage is written:

"a half-starved highland women frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of baring any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury in the fair sex, while it inflames perhaps the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy the powers of generation."

Did the upper class have any type of birth control or prophylactic measures in this time period? Is this observation correct, or some form of bias against the poor / women?

Did they or did they not serve? In what capacity?

Was the USSR justification that Poland had ceased to exist when Germany invaded simply repeated, or was there a different reasoning given to make sense of why they responded to the invasion by both Germany and USSR with a deceleration of war only on one of them?

I realise they'd be variations of deployment depending on the numbers, terrain, nature of the foe etc, but generally speaking how many men deep would they go?

Also more specifically, I have read that reliable sources for Stamford Bridge are scarce, but were there any reports at Hastings on how deep the line went for these battles? Any more information on shield wall tactical variations and general deployment would be interesting to hear too.

During WWII the Wehrmacht remained heavily reliant on muscle power (both horse and human) for supply transport and movement. This forced German armored units to stop on multiple occasions for the infantry to catch up, and slowed the German retreat on the Eastern Front. Why would a military with a doctrine of rapid penetration and exploitation, from a country famous for its automotive industry, lag so far behind in logistics?