The Roman system of Republic included a Plebeian Council and a Tribune of the Plebs that, in theory, allowed common citizen interests to be represented by the patricians and in the Senate.

My question is about whether this representation extended to Rome's war efforts, diplomatic relationships and geostrategy. How deeply were citizens able to embed themselves into Rome's most important and ambitious drivers of wealth and fortune?

On a similar note, was it commonly believed among the commoners during Roman times that Rome was an empire like Alexander's and others before it?

I know there is a big time gap in between both events, but I find hard to picture how the internal conflict plus two WWs helped the Russians/Soviets allowed them to become to prominent.

I remember reading that, as Arabs in the Muslim world slowly lost power to the new Turkic Muslims, that Arab caliphs would "delegate" powers to Turkic sultans in order to keep the peace, since the former had no de facto power and the latter had no de jure right to rule over the Muslim world. If this was true, about when did this start happening?

I was listening to a Hardcore history podcast when he started talking about how Dreadnoughts were used only one time in the way in which they were theorized to be optimal in(battle of jutland). He made the point that ships were so expensive to make and for this period were notoriously easy to sink as a simple mine or lucky submarine could take on out. So me(knowing nothing of naval technology) thought about this problem and wondered; how viable would decoy ships with tons of armor and "fake" guns or guns that only shot blanks and thus didn't have high amounts of explosives that could be set off by a lucky shot or ship fire. So Basically they would just soak up shots that would ideally be relatively ineffective while the 'real' ships could safely(er) dish out their damage. Anyway I'd appreciate it if someone could poke holes in this idea

EDIT: meant WW1 not WW2

My grandfather is a diehard conservative and refuses to believe that slavery was the primary cause for the Civil War (guess it's a passive-agressive, white pride thing). I'm submitting this question in hopes for a non-refutable, definite answer that can simply change his opinion on it. I am aware that you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink, but after months of him jabbing at me and my "liberal beliefs", I want to finally deliver the best argument I can in hopes that he will at least maybe consider the alternative. Thanks!

I've never really understood the specifics of the decision. What made the Allied parties decide to remove that part of Germany versus other areas?

I've been fascinated with them for a long time and am considering building a scale model recreation. I haven't had any luck finding relevant literature.

Something like a first lieutenant or a captain. Did they have honourable/dishonourable discharges? What kind of offenses would result in expulsion from the Navy or even prison?

And could an ex-officer go on to command a merchant ship or privateer?

Were the citizens of the USSR aware of what was going on elsewhere in the world at that time?

Perhaps it's just my own ignorance but the Cossacks seem an especially nebulous and enigmatic topic.

There are thousands of people today who can render a human better than the average 14th century religious mural. Were perspective and anatomy really simply not understood, or was it a deliberate stylistic choice to render humans, architecture, and larger scenes so unrealistically?

Furthermore, how often would they receive updated orders from the leaders of their country.

I realize that there are isolated cases today, but I'm asking more about slavery as a whole. I am assuming that when it was officially abolished the slave owners did not merely free their slaves immediately, but correct me if I am wrong on that.

With the combined strength of the Prussians and Franco-Bavarians, why not conquer the whole of Austria? What about Silesia was so important that it was all Federick II wanted of Austria, when he could have taken more?

I know many presidents take more indirect roles, running political foundations and other organizations, but has there ever been a president who, after their term concluded, became a senator, governor, or other 'lower ranking' political official?

i just started reading The Making of the English Working Class, and while talking about Methodist contributions to working class organization, Thompson adds: "(Those Wesleyan Annual Conferences, with their 'platform', their caucuses at work on the agendas, and their careful management, seem uncomfortably like another 'contribution' to the Labour movement of more recent times.)"

what was the more recent contribution?? i wish i knew more stuff :(

thank you!

It seems like Germany had been preparing for a war quite a few years before the outbreak of WWI. What's the evidence for and against that Germany was just looking for an excuse to go to war? And the other major powers?