It's my understanding that Rome had naval dominance in this period, so travel across the Mediterranean was difficult, so how did he get back?

Did he travel with only a small party so he could sneak across? Had Rome's naval dominance diminished by this time? I've always wondered this but have never seen it covered anywhere.

Trade talks with the occupied and neutral countries?

I should clarify that I have a basic understanding of Bonapartism during the reign of Napoleon III, I am just more curious about the state of the House of Bonaparte after his abdication and death.

Also, just in case anyone is curious, I am not very old despite my great-grandfather having been born in the 1870s. I just have a family history of older men marrying younger second wives.

It is my understanding that the prevailing mode of production in ancient times was a slave economy, and that this held true in Rome up through the time of her collapse. How, exactly, did this give way to the 'feudal' relations of production in Western Europe, with lords and serfs and all that? Did the 'barbarians' who invaded not believe in slavery, after being subjected to it by 'civilized' society for so long?

Sorry if this has been asked before. Searches yielded mostly biased-seeming sources of this information.

I am currently reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Young Stalin" and he mentions kind of causally that Lenin was at least partially funded by German interests - ostensibly to help disrupt Russian involvement in WWI.

Are there reliable sources for this information?

We have all read fairy tales which contain mystical creatures such as elves, trolls and fairies. Would someone living in Europe in the early Middle Ages truly believe that deep in the woods there were magical beings. Or were the tales used as they are now for children's enjoyment?

I am reading a collection of interviews about WW2 ("The Good War" by Studs Terkel) and often the interviewees mention that they suffered a casualty rate well in excess of one hundred, such as 160% or 300%. Does anyone know what this means?

I've searched around online, but I only find casualty rates explained in the sense which I would have expected, with 100% being the maximum. I'm not sure if there's some kind of weighting going on or what.

I hope this is the right place to ask. Judging from what I saw online, it seems like this may be an outdated system so I figured it was more of a history question. Thanks!

Everytime I'm on a hike or travelling to a place far away, and I'm walking with a heavy backpack, I keep thinking: If I were not in the year 2k+, would I be able to survive a long walk to a whole other tribe or state? What about going 200Km on foot, over a few days, with your belongings in your back without a road to follow?

Is there any vivid report whatsoever of a long walk of people going to war somewhere, or really long trips, alone or in group?

I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, and one of the things that comes up over-and-over again is the idea that France was beset on all side by foreign and domestic conspiracies that plotted the demise of the nation. Many high-level members of the revolution were killed for suspicion of being involved in a plot against the nation on very flimsy evidence.

Is there a way to understand this social phenomenon? I'm having a hard time believing that anyone involved in the revolution honestly believed in massive conspiratorial plots, or that any of their fellow revolutionaries might be involved in a conspiracy.

Almost at the end of Thomas Asbridge's The Crusades, and I'm looking for a similarly recent, comprehensive and well-balanced book on three topics:

1. The Richard I/Henry II conflict,

2. The war of the Roses

3. The byzantine empire in general, from beginning to end

Any help would be much appreciated :)

Normally, people attribute the things such as the Holocaust solely to Hitler. However, I have also heard that Hitler was more of a figurehead and charismatic speaker for the Nazi party. How involved was Hitler with the actions of the Reich? Was he the policy setter or just its messenger?

Hopefully I don't ruin the film for anyone with this question, but there's a bit where Don Corleone is released from hospital and it's reported in the newspaper. Would it have been possible for someone to be reported as the head of a criminal organization and not face any sorts of consequences?

Were the big names of crime like Arnold Rothstein or Lucky Luciano treated this way?

I really don't intend this to sound insulting to Arabs and/or Muslims; I just don't know how else to ask the question.

A thousand years ago Arabs in general, and especially Muslims, were the height of culture and technology outside of the Orient. They invented algebra, and a code of laws that was so fair and equitable that we're still talking about it today. Their artistic works were gorgeous -- the Arabic calligraphy alone became a refined art form in itself.

Now, though, the middle east is a little bit more westernized, but I (as an American, anyway) don't see much in the way of new technological advancement or amazing works of art coming from that part of the world anymore.

What gives?