We often (and with some justice) think of the Romans as a totalizing diplomatic force in their own region and beyond.

I'm curious, though, about whether or not there were cultures or commercial groups or anything that had heard of the Roman Republic or Empire, but which had never yet encountered that republic or empire formally. What was their view of this titanic political and economic entity? What did they hope to achieve from such contact?

And to pose a follow up question, how did a foreign monarch manage to hold on so tightly to a state which seemed to have had such a strong national and ethnic identity? Was it simply seen as the only (and preferable) alternative to Ottoman rule? I know that there was unrest and nationalistic sentiment to some degree and that this was the main reason for the Austro-Hungarian compromise, but I'd really like the finer points of this issue illuminated for me.

How much more effective on average was the trained-from-birth-elite-super-soldier-hoplite-armored-thing that is a Spartan soldier than your average hoplite from other city-states that aren't Sparta?

Im reading a book, "out of the flames", which talks about micheal servetus's life. In this book I've learned about how the feud between calvin's ideas and servetus's ideas created a conflict in geneva, which led to his eventual burning. I'm just really curious about how many other theologians, priests, or scholars didn't agree with him also. All I can find is calvin! Thanks

Specifically, their diplomatic immunity and its interaction with segregation laws. I understand they don't want to make waves, but it seems like it would be impossible in the face of such vitriolic racism.

I thought of this question when I finished reading Matthew Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest and wanted to learn more. I looked through the bibliography to find new books, but since his book was written in 2003 a lot of the sources are from the 70s and 80s, and I wasn't sure how reliable they still are.

That got me wondering - is there a ballpark range or a cut-off point for when secondary sources start to become dated? I'd love to hear your thoughts, whether you have general guidelines or something specific to your field.

I do have two sub-questions for particular fields:

1. Since Restall inspired this, does anyone have any guidelines for pre-Columbian, conquest, or colonial Latin America?

2. I apparently have 3 books about the Medieval Europe from the 1960s - are those too old to be accurate?

But like I said, even if you can't answer those two sub-questions I'd be very interested in learning what age guidelines might apply to your own field. Thank you very much!

Did the Greeks always practice castration? Did any other Europeans practice castration?

I recently learned that the number 0 wasn't a thing in Europe until Fibonacci translated an Arabic book about the Hindus use of the number 0 in the 1200s. This was during the crusades. So I was wondering what the catholic church thought about the number 0 initially since they didn't really agree with evolution initially either?

As title says. Haven't had luck looking around

What was it like being a Middle Class Person in Victorian England?

What did you do?

What was your family life like?

What were your living conditions?

How long could you expect to live?

Did you own any weapons?

What medicine could you and your family afford on an annual basis?

How did you and your family dress?

How educated where you?

How much did you earn?

Were you well respected?

What was done for leisure on holidays?

What did you eat?

Basically want some general knowledge of the life of a middle class person in Victorian England. Say the 1850s to 1880s in Manchester specifically but it's not mandatory. I'm happy with any general information of the middle class in the Victorian era.

I read somewhere that when a minority group gets to a certain percentage in a populace, that conflict usually begins to emerge in palpable ways. I want to say it was anywhere from 8 - 16%, but I've since lost that source.

I'm looking for examples of how good governance has handled a sudden influx and possibly permanent relocation of a new "other" group in notable ways.

Where this question is coming from: My readings on the Great Migration have not been very uplifting; as I've been studying racially integrated towns in my US state and finding discrimination even in the "good municipalities." Also, my earlier studies on Europe before the Holocaust also have me wondering (well I guess hoping) if different groups of peoples have lived together in relative harmony for a long period of time and how good leadership maybe made it all work.

Sorry for the broadness, I'm sure I could narrow down in comments.

Are there any societies which afforded all animals, or select species, special status? What were the benefits of such special status?