Such killings weren't rare over the succeeding decades. The followers of Tiberius' brother Gaius died similarly, though the most famous example is the murder of Julius Caesar by Marcus Junius Brutus et al in 44BC.

Did any precedent exist at the time of Tiberius' murder?

To what extent were the suspensions of law later occasionally directed by the Senate and which came to be referred to as Senatus consultum ultimum considered to be in the same tradition?

Did the assassins that struck frequently from Caesar's time onwards and almost invariably after the death of Commodus ever refer to this senatorial habit?

Edit: The earlier office of dictator has been brought up in a comment now deleted. I'll add my intended reply here seeing as it clarifies what I'm asking about:

The continuities between extraordinary Senate powers during the late Republican period and the office of dictator occasionally instituted earlier are definite. OTOH, from Wikipedia:

As soon as the Dictator was appointed, he became the chief executive and commander-in-chief of the Republic. The regular magistrates – with the exception of the Tribune of the Plebs – became subject to the higher imperium of the Dictator. They continued to discharge the duties of their various offices under the Dictator, but they were no longer independent officers and were obliged to obey his orders in every circumstance. Failure to do so could result in the dictator forcing the magistrate out of office.

The superiority of the Dictator's power to that of the consuls consisted chiefly of greater independence from the Senate, more extensive power of punishment without a trial by the people, and complete immunity from being held accountable for his actions. However, what gave the dictator such great control over Rome was his lack of a colleague to counter him. Unlike the Consuls, who were required to cooperate with the Senate, the Dictator could act on his own authority without the Senate, though the Dictator would usually act in unison with the Senate all the same. There was no appeal from the sentence of the Dictator (unless the dictator changed his mind), and accordingly the lictors bore the axes in the fasces before them, even in the city, as a symbol of their absolute power over the lives of the citizens.

The Dictator's imperium granted him the powers to rule by decree and to change any Roman law as he saw fit, and these changes lasted as long as the Dictator remained in power.

Can you comment on the statement that "the regular magistrates – with the exception of the Tribune of the Plebs – became subject to the higher imperium of the Dictator"? Plebian Tribune was the position held by Tiberius Gracchus.

Could a dictator be appointed without the consent of the popular assembly, or even in defiance of it? Or does the sole authority of the Senate distinguish senatus consultum ultimum from earlier dictatorships?

Continuing on from the title, How was this done? did they use diving bells or did then just drag rope and hope it went underneath so they could pull it up?

I've seen this quote in a couple of different places, apparently this is supposed to be from a letter that Che wrote to his father. However I wasn't able to find any credible source on this. Is it true or is it made up?

I wanted to keep the title short, but my real query is this:

I've read and watched many things that indicate drinking alcohol like wine and claret for every meal, social event and guest arrival was extremely common during some time periods.

My questions:

1. was this true for certain time periods and on average how much alcohol could one consume during a routine day?

2. If the quantity consumed is an amount that would intoxicate an individual by today's standards and understanding of BAC, could it be argued that a person living in such a time period could have been twenty first century inebriated often?

3. If the argument in question two can be made in defense of people being frequently inebriated, how does that affect the way historians interpret events that occurred in that time period? I.e. Could this assumption be used to give a better understanding of why societal life was conducted in the manner it was during that period of time?

I have no idea if this is already general historical knowledge or even worthy of debate, but I had been thinking about it and was curious to know.

I mean to prevent the technology form falling into Japanese hands.

Of what significance is it finding them?

From what I understand they couldn't hold wives or touch a female member of their own family (I'm assuming this even means hugs, pecks on the cheek, etc).

Was this because they believed female attachment would weaken them and compromise their ability as renowned warriors or was it religious? Was there even a good reason at all? And if no sons were born into the order how did they go about recruitment? Was it any old serf willing to take the vows or did they have some sort of pre-requisite?

So I was reading the Warrior Chronicles as of late, and a thought came to mind, is it possible for someone like Uhtred of Bebbanburg to actually have existed? Obviously I don't mean in the sense of literally a lord in northern England turned Danish, just in general. Also, if you've read the series before, please refrain from spoilers, I'm only a little bit into the first book.

Even considering the 'beach-head' of missionaries and merchants most powers would have had, this doesn't explain how they could assert control over a foreign land to me. Especially, how did they build the tools of administration necessary to practically assert control?

And if they simply relied on pre-existing native administrations initially, how and when did they make the transfer to a colonial administration, if at all?

To clarify the question, I'm not asking for an exhaustive list of what the Romans did well. Rather, I'm asking what was so unique about their circumstances that no other complete Mediterranean empire ever arose, and how after the Romans very few even managed to united Italy for at least another thousand years, much less the rest of their core domains.

More specifically, for many major, ancient long lasting Empires, there is a repeating patterns of their geographical heartlands and limits. For example, the Chinese heartland has unified, fragmented and unified again numerous times. The Persian Empires almost always contain the same heartlands as their predecessors. Most of the Northern Indian empires throughout history occupy the heartland. Same with Egypt, the Anatolian states, or even the entirety of the Eastern Mediterranean.

To be concise, it seems many of these regions repeatedly come under the same regimes and empires throughout history. There almost seems like geographical and ethnic fate for the core regions of these empires to never be splintered for long. One can say it's logical for these great empires to arise again and again out of the same place, and occupy roughly the same core areas.

Obviously there have existed many empires who go far beyond these traditional borders (that is to say, empires that combined large swaths of previously unrelated territories), and afterwards we never again see those territories under the same authorities. But it seems most of such empires never last very long, and they quickly dissolve back to the status quo.

For example, Alexander quickly conquered and combined Macedonia, Greece and the Persian empire. Yet just as quickly the empire dissolved back into pieces that fit pretty neatly with predecessor states and empire (i.e. it dissolves roughly into the old territories of Egypt, Median Empire, Hittite Empire, Greece).

Same with the Mongols. As quickly as they conquered, they dissolved even quicker into 4 pieces, 3 of which geographically correspond well with older empires (Persia, Qara Khitai, China). Even the Caliphate dissolved similarly within time.

But the Romans seem special. They completely dominated the Mediterranean for what, 500 years? Much longer than most of the "one-and-done" Empires in history. For centuries the Romans held off the decay into their original constituent states, seemingly without extreme difficulty. Yet afterwards barely anybody managed to unite Italy, much less the Mediterranean.

Justinian came close to ruling the entire Mediterranean, yet that effort exhausted the Byzantines, so much so that in hindsight we consider the reconquest to be a hopeless venture that could never have lasted, despite massive military victories. Why was it so incredibly difficult, and almost logistically impossible for the Byzantines to fully recreate the Roman empire? And for that matter, virtually anybody else?

Was it simply because the Romans were fortunate enough to greatly develop in technology and organization at a time when none of their neighbors could match it? And once the people of the Mediterranean semi-reached parity with each other, it became impossible for any one of them to dominate all of the others?

Or were the Romans of the late Republic/early Empire just... special?

TLDR; why is it considered pretty much impossible, in the post-Roman world, for anybody to recreate the borders of that empire in a lasting manner? What changed in those centuries of Roman rule, that turned the reality of a lasting, united Mediterranean into a pipe dream?

I know China isn't the same everywhere, but it seems MUCH less fragmented than other regions that have held major civilizations since ancient times, especially Europe. Why is this so?

India, too, seems abnormally unified?

Just a rough approximation, I'd like to know if it's in the tens or thousands. How does that compare to elite soldiers of other regions (i.e. a Japanese samurai)?

From what I understand, Hitler and Pétain had an agreement whereby the Germans wouldn't interfere in Southern France if the Vichy regime kept "public order". I know that the French collaborators cooperated in the rounding up of Jews in both the Free zone and the Occupied zone in the North, providing the forces and lists of names. So what happened to cause Hitler to invade the South just two years after agreeing not to?

I know it is very popular, even amongst non-believers, to claim that Jesus was "the most sublime ethical teacher of all time." Jefferson did this. Voltaire did this. Etc. But I can't help, for myself at least, to compare Jesus to Aristotle. When I do I can't help but conclude that Jesus was actually a light-weight. Was Jesus a truly great and original ethical teacher? Or are people just offering sops to Christians?

I have been reading up on US elections of 1936 and 1940 but cant find any information on the following. What were republican stances in 1936 and 1940 as opposed to Democrats in US on economy, war in Europe and Asia, their stance on intervention/issolation?

People like Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua, Ezekiel, Jonah, etc.? Are there any historical records outside of the Bible?

I guess to be more specific, was Abraham a real person? He seems very important historically to most of the world (Jews, Christians, Muslims).

I was reading Peter Massey's biography of Peter the Great and it seems that Russia -particularly in the aristocracy- was extremely patriarchal and that wives and daughters were distinctly beneath the men of the family. Yet even before Peter's social reforms his half-sister Sophia reigned as regent with significant power, how was this accepted by such a patriarchal nation?

Side note: Why didn't America adopt the tradition of bantering between parties like in the British parliament?

The Mexican population was decimated during the 1600s by cocoliztli, a disease supposedly indigenous to Mexico. But why did these epidemics occur not long after Mexico was colonized? Did the Spanish have anything to do with it, or was it coincidence that the epidemics happened to happen at this time? Also, are there any known cases of diseases destroying large populations in the Americas prior to 1492?

They were in a pretty dire situation at the time in terms of the US embargo against essential resources. They knew they were never going to win a an all out war with the US, so why provoke it?

I've heard Forrest's use of cavalry was later studied and employed in the World Wars. Patton and Rommel are two names I've heard associated with these tactics, but I don't know whether these are apocryphal associations or not. Can anyone show specific instances in which a strategy and/or tactic used by Forrest was used with tanks or other machines? If you have any battlemaps or diagrams to help illustrate things that would be a great help!

Were horses also seen as an important target as their riders? Is there some kind of statistics or a ratio of number of horsemen killed vs number of horses killed in any battle?