Trying to find out about them, I've found differing views: some say that Freemasons are a cult, others say it's some kind of society that people including George Washington were members of. However, I've yet to find out what they actually are or what they do.

Were there any specific reasons why the US didn't launch any offensives in the north? Would capturing Hanoi not have been a big blow to the NVA or did the war not work that way? Thanks in advance!

It seems to me like in the original design of the electoral college, there wasn't any role for the popular vote: the state legislatures would pick the electors, and the electors would have a conclave of sorts where they would debate and vote, without having been pledged to any candidate.

Looking at the Wikipedia article on the 1788 presidential election, it seems like even then some electors were chosen by the people of their states, but it seems like the people were voting for electors, not candidates.

In a modern presidential election, you don't vote for electors, you vote for candidates. For example, if you were a voter in Alaska in 2012, you saw on your ballot the names "Barack Obama" and "Mitt Romney". But if you voted for Romney, you were actually voting for Kristie Babcock, Kathleen Miller, and Christopher Nelson (the three electors from Alaska that year; each had pledged to vote for Romney). In a modern presidential election, the voters vote for electors who have been pledged to candidates without actually seeing the names of the electors.

When did electors start being pledged to candidates? How did the transformation occur?

Edit: follow up question - how much of a notice were they given before they were interned?

From the inception of The Roman Republic in 508BC forward how was a soldier in the Roman army rewarded for their service and how did this change over time?

Coins had only just been invented at the start of this period so I imagine that at the start they were paid in other means or were simply forced to fight?

I'm particularly interested in how much their pay was worth - what could they buy for it?

If you could point me toward the right direction, that would be great. Thanks in advance.

In the movie Rashomon (11th century Japan) a medium is used to relay the account of a deceased victim. In an historical fiction book set in the 12th century (A Morbid Taste for Bones by Ellis Peters), a vision comes to one of the priests in a church and on this basis alone the church members journey to acquire a relic. Were the accounts of priests or shamans always accepted unconditionally even by those in authority?

I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around this, mainly because the common answer I always get is that Khalid al-Walid was a tactical genius...but even then, how can a tactical genius with 20k to 40k men defeat an army 140k deep from THE superpower of that era...and its not like the Romans didn't have experience, they'd been fighting the Sassanids on and off for centuries...can someone please clear this up for me its still hard to fathom just typing it out here

I bought Citizens by Simon Schama, but the narration is really difficult for me to get through because the man reading doesn't know how to take a breath before he starts a long sentence, and it's driving me crazy

[deleted]

Most polytheistic religions that don't have some sort of set pantheon of a handful of gods and no one else will have absolutely thousands or even hundreds of thousands of gods. For example the Greco-Roman Pantheons and Hindu ones.

I know some gods were taken over by Romans as they conquered land, but are there also cases where people make up gods? I mean, without trying to step on too many toes, they all were of course. But could you just make up a god in an afternoon and was it accepted that that was then an accepted god of the pantheon? Or was it necessary for a priest to be involved and somehow make note of the new deity for the "archives"? I suppose the best way to find out would be Hinduism, since that one's still around.

Steven Bannon says he wants a "Trillion dollar infrastructure plan." Trump also stated that he plans on lowering taxes. I wonder how in the past we paid for large projects like this.

In particular, what are the differences between nationalism in the 21st century vs 19th century? I've always associated nationalism with the revolutions of the 19th century but with the recent election cycle, I've been seeing the phrase "right wing" or "white" nationalism used in a frequently negative connotation. Has nationalism always carried connotations of racism, xenophobia, etc. or is that a recent phenomenon?

I apologize if any of the questions seem loaded. I'm not intentionally trying to paint the recent wave of nationalism in any positive or negative way.

If this question is too vague, I'll gladly accept criticism to narrow the focus. I'll throw in some specific queries to get a jump start - I'm not interested specifically in the history of mechanical clocks (though I like that history too), but "time" as a more general concept.  

What kinds of natural phenomena have been used as "clocks"? I'm familiar with the nail-in-candlewax, sun dials, mechanical clocks - are there lesser known "clocks" that have been used? Who used them, and for what purpose? Were there any cultures who had unique needs or desires that led to different timekeeping methods?

Have units of time always been understood as objective and the same for everybody, everywhere? For example, barring relativity/minute measurement issues, I believe that one day is roughly the same duration as another and can be subdivided into equal parts. In the past, was there ever a perception that over long distances time could be somehow "different"? Maybe like Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings?  

I'm curious about anything to do with time and clocks!

Have they all pretty much retired and gone into philanthropic work after leaving office?

Or have any of them ever gone back to being a senator, governor or held any public office?