As the title suggests, I am really interested in to what extent the plague contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. Basically what prompted this question was my reading of "Disease - The Extraordinary Stories Behind History's Deadliest Killers", I was reading about the plague, and it made a rather interesting claim, but when I read it I thought I must bring it to the attention of this sub, because it is a rather bold claim. It goes:

"The first great plague to bear the characteristic swollen buboes was the plague of Justinian in 541-4. Spreading from Egypt to Europe, the Plague of Justinian may well have played a role in the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire."

This is a really fascinating, and exciting claim. But I'm not going to get too excited with myself until I have it verified. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it does make sense that at the time of the plague, if I remember correctly it swept right through Rome (as high as Milan and Genoa), right down to Sicily, or is it Sardinia?), so the plague was everywhere and affecting everyone.

As for my second question, after the events of the plague did this encourage the empire to develop contamination procedures, eventually giving rise to what we see as quarantine today?

I look forward to hearing back, as this is really quite exciting for me!

Possibly not the most expressive way to ask the question, so I'll rephrase. When did people get the idea that consent is needed for sex, and that rape is a bad thing?

This may be somewhat at the boundary of history and literature, since the latter is how most morals seem to be transmitted.

The bible, for example, has lots of sex with not very much consent; when women have sex, the implication seems to be that consent is required from their dads/husbands, not the women themselves. The Iliad starts out with Agamemnon and Achilles fighting over girls, presumably without asking what they feel. The only objector to their arrangement comes from the priest Chryses, who doesn't mind rape-slavery as long as it doesn't happen to his daughter. Come to think about it, the entire premise of the Iliad is two men fighting over the same chick without asking her opinion.

On the other hand, twenty years later Penelope is choosing her suitors, which seems to be a minor step forward.

With the confederate flag and marriage equality there have been posts everywhere on social media about the history of the Confederates and how republicans were all about ending slavery and Democrats weren't and blah blah it's one post versus another it's it's honestly getting aggravating.

Are there a set of books by an author, or maybe a list somewhere of an objective and appropriately sourced history of the U.S. That anyone can recommend? Personally I'm tired of googling facts and want to educate myself appropriately. Any help is much appreciated.

Outside of the Korean War of course.

When the two countries split and became the Confederate states of America and the Union, Jefferson Davis was president of the confederate, and Abraham Lincoln was president of the union, so why is it when we learn in history class or look at a list of presidents Jefferson Davis isn't listed? Is this just a "the victors of war write the history of war" type thing or is there a legit reason behind this? The union wasn't the United states at the time.. ? I'm just confused on the subject and would like some input / clarity! Thanks!

I've been working on a project and came across the statement, "San Antonio is one of the most fought-over cities in North America" I knew there was history but here's the details. 1813: Battle of Alazon Creek Battle of Medina 1835: Siege of San Antonio de Bexar 1836: Battle of the Alamo 1840: Council House Fight (Perhaps not a battle for control) 1842: Invaded on March 5th Battle of Salado Creek

Would this make it the most fought-over city?

Obviously, with all the recent public discussion on the Confederate battle flag, its display, its meaning and its history, what historical evidence is there as to the motivations of those who fought underneath this banner to join the war efforts?

I've heard people argue the Civil War was explicitly about slavery and others argue it was about states' rights generally, wherein slavery was just one example of the federal encroachment on states' rights. Obviously there were those who fought for the Confederacy that didn't own slaves, so were these individuals convinced to join the fight because of encroachment upon states rights or did most just join because their geographic location, socioeconomic reasons, or something else?

Were families on either side of the Atlantic cut off from one another?

When would they have used rockets instead of normal artillery, and why? How come we don't use rockets as much today?

I mean the decline in wealth and clout more than in terms of actual possessions as Portugal ceased to be a major power way before they lost their colonies in the 70s.

On the surface they seem to be a similar to the Dutch, small country empire based on trade more than occupying large territories as Spain did.

Yet the Dutch appear to have done something that the Portuguese couldn't (or maybe I am wrong comparing the two).

Dutch empire left behind a very wealthy state while Portuguese empire left behind a country that is sort of poor for Western European standards - despite the fact that it was spared the devastation in the 20th century.

This bit is irrelevant: Actually the reason why I started wondering about that is the Greek crisis - I looked up if Poland is likely overtake the first one EU15 state in terms of GDP per capita after Greek default only to find out that according to some sources Portugal has GDP lower than Poland (it probably has slightly higher one, but the point still stands). This made me wonder about the history of Portugal and the decline of their once very wealthy empire.

I only know the very basics of the mongolians, it all rather fascinates me on how quickly they expand and then collapsed, killing so many millions of people in the time. Any books on this period that are good?

Specifically, what was the general public perception of them? Were they received and treated as heroes, unwitting pawns, villains, or some mixture of these? Also, how did the soldiers view themselves? I'm more keen to understand if the soldiers were proud of their service or would try to downplay it in light of war crimes and the Holocaust.

Did they put their differences aside? Was there any lingering animosity between soldiers after/during? Or was that exclusive to northern and southern politicians?

I understand on the surface eliminating the republic to begin an empire appears as if Julius was a foe but is this too simple of a conclusion?

From what I gather, the Roman empire had significant economic inequalities that threatened to tear apart the entire system. For all the empire had achieved in the 200 years prior to Julius's reign, most of the working class had little to show for the supposed period of prosperity.

Julius aimed to re balance the system and destroy the oligopolistic system that was in place through economic reforms including land redistribution.

The answer seems complicated so I was wondering what the consensus may be.