Wikipedia informs me that, upon Ceaser's return to Rome:

"Instead he turned to legal advocacy. He became known for his exceptional oratory, accompanied by impassioned gestures and a high-pitched voice, and ruthless prosecution of former governors notorious for extortion and corruption. Even Cicero praised him: "Come now, what orator would you rank above him...?"[26] Aiming at rhetorical perfection, Caesar travelled to Rhodes in 75 BC to study under Apollonius Molon, who had previously taught Cicero.[27]"

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of a book or website that explores Ceaser's career as an orator/advocate.

To the layman (me) - we always hear about the likes of the Blackbird and U2 bomber - and then later on the F-117 and B2 bomber as these great advancements in warfare technology. I've never heard what would be considered the pinnacle of Russian warfare technology during this period. It always seems to me that the Russians were playing catch-up and would look to adapt pre-existing US technology that they may have been procured through espionage or other means. (This could be wrong but its the impression I'm under reading back through the Cold War)

would they have used horns and banners?

I was just curious to how warfare was structured in the middle ages particularly in England, France, Byzantium and the Italian city states and how warfare in these areas were different

When did communities first make the switch from currency with an inherent value (gold coins or gold backed paper money) to a currency that derived its value from government regulation and mutual trust?

And I'm aware that Artillery can be used to describe anything, but I don't know the name of those big fancy upward facing guns. If anyone could also elaborate on the transitional period and any logistical difficulties that large empires found in keeping their troops well equipped I would be most grateful.

I just spoke with someone about the origin of the flag of Austria which based on a legend came from the duke of Austria Leopold V in the siege of Acre. He was supposed to wear a white surcoat which after a battle was completely drenched in blood until he took off his belt revealing a white stripe.

The original origin of the flag aside: was it even likely that a high lord such as a duke would even personally engage in close-ranged combat? I read that at one point he was in charge of the Christian army at this siege which consisted of 25000 men.

I would picture him standing in a tent nearby surrounded by guards, planning and sending troops rather than drawing his sword and fighting off dozents of enemies personally.

Wouldn't that have been incredibly risky for him otherwise?

Thanks

I know my great-grandfather died at Gallipoli, but we can't find any records of him because nobody in the Ottoman Empire had surnames. How does a bureaucracy operate without surnames to simplify census taking and tax collecting?

Jimmy Carter's announcement that he's facing his own mortality made me think about the fact that right now, we have 5 living current and former U.S. presidents- Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama. Has there ever been a time when there were more than that?

I'm assuming it might have been in the 19th century, when there were a ton of one-term presidents.

I've started playing the WW2 strategy game "Hearts of Iron 3", by Paradox Interactive, as France. In my desperate attempt to reverse history and hold out against the endless waves of the Wermacht, I'm left wondering one thing:

Why didn't France, knowing after the Great War that Germany was more than willing and capable to invade through Belgium, not build up similar defenses protecting northern France along the Belgian border?

It seems like a very common sense thing to do, and 'theoretically' could have made a massive difference, so why did the French government not do so?

With all this talk about birthright citizenship and the legality of it, just wondering if there is any case that might challenge it.