I know Augustus and Tiberius liked to pretend the Republic was still alive, and Ti at least attempted to continue that facade when giving Sejanus tribune powers and appointing him consul. After that debacle, did Caligula go up the same ladder or any ladder or was his position de facto? I've also read that Vespasian was the first to really formally institute his position so I'm unclear on the middle period.

[Reposting this question I asked a while back since it's relevant to the weeks theme] It seems like the Nation of Islam and other groups often engage(d) in Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories of the Jews being behind the American slave trade. Am I right in this assumption? And, if so, how and why did they end up adopting these beliefs?

Recently I've found myself fostering a growing fascination with history. And after my parents suckered me into watching the BBC's "The Last Kingdom"--a fictionalized version of events occurring during Alfred the Great's life in England--I started some very casual research into the time period. Holy crap there's a lot going on! Reading Wikipedia pages can only get me so far though: does anyone have book suggestions on this topic? Particularly the mid 800s Viking invasion of England? I'm not a scholar and would enjoy something accessible. I know very, very little about how life was back then... I hope this is the right place to ask, and thank you all for any help in advance!

[deleted]

Sidenote - I have nothing but respect for the Corps.

Anyway, I'm hoping to enlist in the US Army soon, but most of my friends want to be in the Corps. When asked why, some answered "Well, for the title of 'Marine." This is also a large reason, as I've heard from veterans, that people enlist in the Corps.

So, why do we as Americans view the title of 'Marine' to be more extravagant than, for instance, Seaman, Soldier, Combat Airman, etc? Is it the result of a recruiting campaign, or just the sheer ferocity of the Corps in general? Why are they seen as much more ceremonial and sacred than the other branches?

Look, I'm very left leaning and while this won't change my views because I'm not a racist, it seriously annoys me when right wing people say Hitler was a liberal

I need some sources for a research paper about if our current society has become over-sexualized. I felt like it would be good to have some history involved because the standards of what is sexual has changed over the years.

Or paralyzed at all for that matter.

I wonder if FDR campaigned on this issue, if there were news outlets talking about speculation behind this, etc.

If anyone has any expertise (in relation to this question) on other countries during the Age of Exploration, I'd also be interested.

Any reading recommendations would be appreciated as well.

I understand that they were primitive, but thier statues seem to have much more realistic proportions and would have been much harder to create.

I am doing some research on Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis. Especifically it says the Codex contained 'constitutions' from previous emperors. When looking into the Codex Theodosianus I read the same.

Could you please clarify if these imperial constitutions are the same as the Constitutions adopted by different States throughout the contemporary world?

Also, I would like to know more about how this Imperial Constitution became a tradition/an institution in Ancient Rome. Was it also common in the republican era? Was there an antecedent to this in pre-Imperial Rome? If there is 'accessible' material for me to access I would appreciate any references.

Who says he wasn't hamstrung by treacherous people in his own Witan/Council? By the 11th century, England was Anglo-Norse in a way, since by then many Norse had settled and had become English in mannerisms and culture. Even during the Great Heathen Army's time, many years before Athelred lived, his great-great-grandfather King Alfred the Great had to contend with English collaborators. Edmund and Edred, his grandfather and great uncle and predecessors as King of the ENglish had to also.

So as collaboration was entrenched, and by that time even longstanding English lines had Norse branches or relatives,the scope for treachery had large scope.

Maybe he was ill-advised or "unready" because he knew he could only act as far as he could?

An example is Eric Bloodaxe, who had native English support in taking York. Or Tostig Godwinson, whom allied with King Harald Hardrada,or Edric Streona who colluded with Cnut against Athelred 's son King Edmund Ironside, after he died at Assandun.

Hey there, it's not very often but every now and again I seem to run into claims that Charlemagne never existed, what is the reasoning behind this assertion and do they have any backing?

Meaning how did it eventually break off from we call Judaism today? I know it's because Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah but where in biblical texts does it specify this?

Being such a far off colony of Spain that, to my knowledge, was very undeveloped, what did Spain gain by holding on to them as a colony? since it was the only Spanish colony in the area it seems like it did not offer any power projection bonus was it very profitable like Indonesia for the dutch?

[deleted]

The Wikipedia page says that there is not agreed upon origin so I'm curious to hear some theories. It also made it seem like they may have separate origins for witches and wizards, but I thought it simpler to make a single question.