Historically speaking, he seems to have suffered more losses than victories and many of his legendary feats were actually fictional. I understand that he is worshipped as a deity more so for his loyalty than his might but I want to know why he was feared on the battlefield.

Back in the day, I remember reading a random article about Presidents and their sexual practices and affairs. It talked about which ones were single, married, had known mistresses, if they paid child support, and if they had illegitimate children. I am pretty sure I read about all of this during the whole Clinton affair ordeal.

I also remember reading something about one or two U.S. Presidents who may have been gay or Bi.

The first major big deal about a President and their sex life that immediately comes to my mind is JFK, but nothing really before that.

• Was a President's sex life always a big deal for their political career??
• Was there a major shift in history when people actually started paying attention to Presidents and their sexual practices??
• Were the ones who had illegitimate children always frowned upon??
• Have there been any Presidents who had to pay child support before, during, or after their time in office??
• Any married Presidents known to have open relationships (I kinda think Hilary and Bill Clinton possibly have one)??
• Any Presidents who were possibly gay, bi, or asexual??
• Why is a married President more preferable than a President who is single?? (Is there a historical reason??)

Sorry for the long list of questions but a recent debate I had got me thinking about all of this. I also don't expect all the questions answered, just any information provided would be awesome. Thanks!!

To me it seems that given the territorial extent of the Second Bulgarian Tsardom from the Adriatic Sea to the Danube and beyond, it should've acted as a bridge between the eastern, (mostly?) north-danubian Vlachs and the south-western, south-danubian Vlachs, thus facilitating contact and communication between the early Eastern Romance speakers rather than inhibiting it.

Would this be a pertinent hypothesis or does the lack of as many slavonisms in modern Aromanian discard it from get-go?

A guest on Charlie Rose last night suggested that we are currently experiencing a period of social and political upheaval similar to the period between 1895-1925 in US history. I only have the barest of historical knowledge of that period but will be researching it in greater detail and thought I might start here with suggestions on books to read. I guess I should first ask, does anyone agree with this comparison?

[deleted]

What was the prevalence and significance of Nazi sympathizers in Allied countries before, during, and after World War II?

Photos of 20s movie stars, particularly the actresses, look markedly different from their 40s-on equivalents. Their faces are rounder and the noses are also different. Is this just what was in fashion?

The Spanish (who the Dutch broke away from) already had a pretty large and prosperous colonial holding in America, how did the Dutch manage to colonize part of America (especially the prosperous sugar islands) while being a relatively new and geographically small nation? I know some small nations also had some colonies in America, like the Prussian/Curonian colonies, but they were under the protection of the Poland-Lithuania. What allowed the Dutch to set up shop in America, Africa and Asia despite being so small?

I initially thought some one might have answered this question in the past, but in looking through my search results and the FAQ, I did not seem to find one.

If you walk in to any grocery, pharmacy, or convenience store today; you will find smaller bottles of soda in 12, 16, and 20 oz. However, once you go above 20 oz you are met with the ubiquitous 2-liter, the rarer 3-liter, and the and upcoming 1 and 1 1/2 liter bottles. These metric-based bottle sizes with the small exception of certain liquor bottle standards (250 ml, 750 ml, 1500 ml) stand in stark contrast to nearly every other beverage type (milk, orange juice) that get measured in ounces, pints, quarts, and gallons and of course all food-based product measurement sizes - a cup, ounces, etc.

So how did we get here?

• How were US soda companies and botttlers (and to a lesser extent liquor companies) able to convince the buying public to accept these sizes in a metric standard when all other food and beverages sold in the US come in non-metric sizes?
• How long was it before these became as ubiquitous as they are today?
• Was there any push back from distributors and the buying public to these metric-based sizes when they first made it to market?

Reading about Shoguns always makes me think that there was a vast opportunity missed to try and make a descendant of yours the Emperor, i.e. by marrying your daughter to a young Emperor or his heir, and bam, having an Imperial descendant, possibly in your lifetime.

But as far as I can tell, that didn't seem to happen. Am I misinformed? Were there any Japanese Lannisters/Tudors who tried this sort of plan? If not, why? How did the Japanese pick their Empresses?

A question was asked recently about the Iranian/Persian famine that happened during World War I. I imagine that the vast majority of the scholarship and primary sources on this period are in Farsi. If a historian is interested in this event, how do they go about researching it, short of learning Farsi and going to Iran to study?

What is the general difference between the original Germanic Saxons from Denmark prior to the 5th century AD, and the Vikings? I believe the Saxons and the Angles both co-inhabited Denmark before they invaded the Roman-abandoned British lands. I also believe that the Vikings, also a Germanic people, inhabited Denmark as well. It is a fact that not all Saxons left for England. In fact, the majority remained in Denmark. Understanding this, did the Germanic Saxons and the Vikings coexist in the same country? Did one beget the other? If they both supposedly originated from the same place, how did they come to be completely different peoples?

As far as I know, that's a prime reason that so many barbarians served in the Roman army toward the end of the western empire, was the guarantee of a plot of land to work and own.

Maybe I'm using Google's news archive incorrectly, but I'm only finding things like the Virginia Gazette, Providence Gazette, and American Journal. That's fine, but I'm looking for another side of the story.

I get the testing of new technology, bomb types, designs, etc., but this seems like a unnecessarily high number of tests. Was it a giant dick waving competition or were there legitimate reasons to need to test thousands of bombs?

Aren't they the equivalent of modern day terrorists? Marching to foreign lands to kill the infidels and non-believers?

From a number as sources I’ve read it seems as though both sides were waiting for the other to do something for a while beforehand, and also that if they had not fired it might have been possible to negotiate leaving the Union.