Great book, genuinely fascinating in detail and scope, but do archeologists and historians consider it to be accurate?

Hi all, a relative of mine is a political science professor and he is trying to put together a course on the continuation of what he calls “caesarism” in modern political systems. Since I like Roman history he asked me for a rec on books about what Caesar did to the republic. Ideally from a social/institutional perspective rather than a focus on the individual himself. I know the request is a little broad and vague, but anyone have ideas?

Meaning large passenger boats like the creole queen, etc.

And if it was Greek, was Macedon not a language yet?

Why was the Tsar and his family killed after he had already stepped down as the ruler? I know that the whole duration of his rule was plagued by tragedy, scandal, and bad decisions. So of course, the people would be angry. I still don’t quite understand why they killed him and his family after the abdication, though.

I’ve been doing more reading about the 11th century and this question kept popping up in my mind. Hardrada is often called the “last viking king” and his defeat by Godwinson in 1066 is broadly considered the end of the Viking Age (I know that’s not quite true as it was slowly coming to a close and this is only broad historical categorization which isn’t accurate). Since he fought under the raven banner and seemed to embody old Norse traditions, was Hardrada a serious Christian, or was this just nominal and for political purposes only? I can’t find any sources and doubt there are any that give us a window into his actual beliefs, but I was wondering if anyone far more knowledgeable than me has a more informed opinion or can guide me to one? Thanks!

When reading about the Tudors, I often see historians writing that Mary and Elizabeth were very popular as princesses and they were often greeted by cheering. As an average peasant, did I really know much about them beyond prayers in the church? What did the commoners really know about Henry VIII's marriages? How much did the average person really know about the Tudors? How did news, rumours, and gossip spread through the people in the 16th century?

Obviously the Norse had no professional armies, and Vikings were just done during the right season, but how did fresh fighters get ready for this endeavor? Would I get some stoic warrior lecture from an elder? Am I going to get smoked by my ship’s Jarl for horsing around during training? How do my elders view me? As a stupid boot who has to earn his stripes? Or just another guy in the drakkar?

Is it the 20th Century? 19th century? Renaissance period? What about other foods that are toxic to animals?

I read an analysis of the binding of Isaac story which claimed it was intended to advocate the replacement of child sacrifice with animal sacrifice. I found the argument mostly convincing, but it's only valid if child sacrifice really was common during the time the story originated. I've also heard a number of other claims about child sacrifice during this time period: for example, that circumcision was intended as a replacement for it, that the Moabites and Ammonites are condemned in the Tanakh because they practiced it, and even that the Israelites themselves practiced it during the First Temple period.

I'm not sure how much to believe any of those things. What's the current historical view?

(Note: I am using the term "New World" loosely to apply to the areas of Greenland, Iceland, and the Americas since it seems like an apt term to use as a non-historian.)

---

What compelled the Vikings to:

1. Search for land across the Atlantic
2. Settle on the New World

Despite the fact that:

• No other country thought of doing either of these 2 things for the next ~500-600 years

---

Here is my attempt at trying to personally rationalize this:

My first assumption is that countries/states/nations essentially see exploration and settlements as an investment and would assess if it were a good or bad investment before performing them. My second assumption is that crossing the Atlantic must be unbelievably expensive if no other country, in 500 years, would even bother thinking about exploring the Atlantic (And for a completely different economic reason.)

If both of these assumptions are vaguely correct, then it would appear that the Vikings, if being remotely economically practical or utilitarian, should not have cared about the New World at all.

---

TL;DR:

1. What did the Vikings see in the new lands beyond the Atlantic?
2. And more importantly: Why did no other country see the same vision for ~500-600 more years?

Was there any casus belli for the common solider, something easy they could digest and feel motivated enough to go to war and die? And do we have records of it? Pamphlets, caricatures of Americans, etc?

From reading previous threads, it looks like the consensus is that he was a bit of a doomsayer, but did he really see himself like this? How did he become the figure he did in his life?

I’ve spoken to people who think he was something of a socialist (or the equivalent of the time). I’m sure that’ll make some people upset to for me to even suggest it, but it has me curious about what we have wrong about him. What parts of the story were turned fantastical and dramatic and what parts actually WERE fantastical and dramatic?

I've picked up Shakespeare's Henriad that spans between Richard II's reign, right through the Wars of Roses, and it really seems to hammer home the importance of lineage and familial history in the Medieval England. Yorkists fought on the basis of Richard's deposition; Henry IV launched an invasion of France partly on the claim Edward III exercised, who himself did so because of his Plantagenet lineage. It's this rabbit hole of these intergenerational familial affairs, but the monarchs themselves might have only lived to 30 or so. A lot of the focus in these plays is on how the events of one monarch stand in relation to prior monarchs, but how much did England (or any Medieval nation) and people's everyday lives change between each reign? It's easy to see how fast technology & politics advanced and shaped the major historical movements between centuries in the modern era, but what would have changed between 1300-1400, or 1400-1500? Would there have been a noticeable difference in how wars were fought, or a difference in the internal political dynamics?