Could I also get an example of a government that works similarly today?

Thank you

To my (sadly limited) understanding of Roman history, there wasn't a precise cut-off date of the Roman Republic following Augustus' ascension to power in the 1st century BC, and the subsequent 'emperors' maintained (or at least tried to maintain) a general veneer of continuation following the footsteps of the old republican traditions. This continued for three-or-so more centuries until Diocletian (kinda-sorta) did away with the façade and formally dressed the Roman state in more autocratic clothing.

Now my question is; is this view of history correct? If not, is there any other points in history in which 'the Republic' could have arguably became 'the Empire'?

Moreover; is there any point in time in which the people living in Rome realised the transition of power from the Senate to the 'Emperor'?

Today we have the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks with an undeniable partisan bent, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and so on. Their influence on national-level elected officials on down to your Uncle Bob in Wichita has been rather profound.

Were there similar goings-on back in the days of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt? Was there a Victorian equivalent to the so-called "Koch-topus"? What was there? I imagine there was something, if not nearly so sophisticated and orchestrated.

We take it for granted that the state is a sovereign entity, and I'm wondering when this paradigm was established. For instance, if I had an issue with the government today, I'd bring suit against he government itself, not just the Senator who wrote the law, or the congressperson who voted for it.

To further clarify (I'm just making something up here), if I the Sheriff of Rottingham wronged me, I'd bring this up with my king, and the king would see that the Sheriff was brought to justice, instead of having an issue with the county of Rottingham or the Kingdom of Robbingwoods.

I'm not sure, but I assume if there was an issue between two nations it would be more of a conflict of the leaders and their interests(Elizabeth I and Philip II?), as opposed to the nations themselves (Britain and Spain). It would definitely be before WWII, as in WWI Germany and her allies themselves was held accountable and to make reparations. I also feel its much earlier, since the preservation of the Union was cause for deployment and conscription during the American Civil War.

Another example is when laws or regulations in the USA are said to be legitimate when they have a "compelling state interest." How and when did a state begin to have an interest in affairs for its own sake? When did people first start to bring suit against the state as an actor?

de Tocqueville gives the impression the Mississippi watershed was bound to become something like the Indo-Gangetic plain, extremely densely populated.

But the Midwestern states are all less densely populated than the coasts.

And, I was wondering - was this the initial trend? Did Americans begin to heavily populate the Midwest and then migrate back to the coast (or onward to the western coast) for some reason?

For example the word "atom" can be traced back to Ancient Greece. But we have records from older civilizations, from the Bronze Age and beyond. Are there any words from further back that we still use today?

I've asked this once before, and I got a whole bunch of upvotes and no comments. Hopefully I'll get some answers this time.

Thanks in advance!

I looked through the FAQ and saw a few threads about historically accurate movies in general, but none seemed to mention any about ancient Rome or Greece, unless they were mentioning how bad Gladiator is in that regard.

A few mentioned Rome as being so-so, but I was more curious about movies rather than tv shows or a miniseries.

I'm writing a paper on this topic and the propaganda used during the time period against the Armenians. Since starting I've become very interested in it and was wondering if anyone has any good articles or books on the topic. I'm very interested in how the Ottomans turned everyone against the Armenians, was it similar to how Hitler did it with his propaganda, or different since literacy was low among the Turks in the empire, making them unable to read anything printed. Thanks in advance!

Does anybody know what I'm talking about? I'm intrigued by the idea of ancient cultures overlapping but I can't seem to find any information on it. I'm really only asking out of personal interest, I have no background in history.

I'm reading up on these guys, and the idea is rather interesting: The Britsh Army raises these men in a rather different light than the standard rank-and-filer. They were armed with Baker Rifles and taught to aim at certain targets and make use of cover, stuff that was rather unorthadox for the time period. However, there are few things my source doesn't answer:

1. Where did the idea of raising a regiment using the ideas they held come from?

2. What sort of accomplishments did they gain during the Napoleonic Wars?

Generally speaking, how much of an army's victory relied on pre battle planning versus immediate real time decisions by the highest ranking officers? (I realize this would obviously vary depending on the commander.)

I'm in a mechanized infantry unit in the US National Guard, and my Company Commander has a LOT of tools to keep control of the battlefield. The Bradley's are all equipped with Blue Force Tracker, most of the dismount squads have radios, and we have a Raven that can fly over and show a live feed of the AO.

I was a squad RTO during our last series of wargames, so I had a proverbial front row seat to the initial battle plans and their execution. Even with the live feeds and instant communication, the initial battle plan ALWAYS has to be heavily modified on the go by the Lieutenants and NCO's. And in the confusion of a simple wargame with lasers instead of real bullets, it gets confusing and chaotic. My current CO said that it's like 'boxing blind.'

How the hell did generals maintain control of their armies with just scouts gathering intel and couriers to disseminate orders?

tl;dr: War is f****** chaotic, how did pre-20th century generals retain accurate intel and maintain control over their hosts of men without modern technology? Did they even really have much control beyond the initial battle plan and where to send reserves?

UPDATE: A huge thank you for all of this information! I apologize for not responding sooner, I haven't had access to a computer this last week.

My grandfather is a huge history buff and big on reading all about his Native American heritage. He told me yesterday that he was at a thrift store with my grandma and found the "most amazing book about the trail of tears". He seemed very excited about it, but did not get the book. He didn't give me much more info about it (no title), but I would love to get him one that is just as enjoyable. Any recommendations?

What I mean is, for some wars like WW2 or WW1 it could be argued that the boom in wartime technology development or economic development (from weapon sales etc) ended up creating advantages for the US in the long run. In the civil war however, the US sustained all the damage from the war, suffered all the casualties, and had to deal with what seems to have been a very contentious period of reconstruction for the south. Slavery was abolished of course, but were there any other not-as-obvious benefits to the civil war?

Apparently after having all of England excommunicated by Innocent III, King John requested the protection of the Emir of Morocco in exchange for converting England to an Islamic Kingdom. I'm wondering how much is myth and how much is fact to this legend.

I may not have word in the title quite right. But I'm trying to get out here is is there any trace of medieval European genetics in modern Middle Easterners.

1. What was the downside to saying you were gay to get out of the Vietnam-era draft?

2. According to the website, there are significant penalties to not signing up for the draft. Have people ever been prosecuted for forgetting to sign up (not draft dodgers)?

3. What could you be asked to do if you were a conscientious objector? Wouldn't this have been a good option if you didn't want to fight?

My paternal grandfather was black and from Venezuela (born and raised), but his surname was Cumberbatch, which is British. I know it's kind of vague, but historically speaking, what's the most likely way this would've happened? I've tried researching this myself, but haven't found anything useful.