I'm just curious, because although they remained neutral, they are in Italy, which was bombarded during WWII. I was wondering if they took any damage (accidental or otherwise).

Bonus question: I'm under the impression that early Christians were pacifists and that that annoyed the Roman government, so when Constantine has his dream to place crosses on shields to win a battle...wouldn't that seem odd to the Christians?

Just watched the Rome series and it got me thinking about how the Roman Republic compared to modern political systems (esp the USA gov't). What were the roles of a consul, a senator, tribunes, etc? How would these positions compare to modern positions?

What style(s) of music would have been the most popular among the non-elite in 19th century Italy? How accessible would it have been? For instance, how often and in what venues could a farmer or craftsmen hear music?

As a bonus, if you can speak to other areas of Europe (particularly Iberia, Britain, or France) I would be very interested.

Did people supporting the Confederates who lived in the North move to the South, or did most already live there, or what?

Just curious because I was thinking about how when I think of the south USA I imagine all the white people are racist lol

Prior to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 parts of the Republic of Ireland's Constitution claimed the island of Ireland as a whole national body, which obviously includes Northern Ireland.

What was both the political and civilian response and opinion to The Troubles and the subsequent civil rights movement in Northern Ireland? Was there any rhetoric from Irish politicians to unite the island under Irish rule? Were there any significant recruits from Ireland to the IRA in Northern Ireland?

In Saxons, Vikings, and Celts (aka Blood of the Isles) by Bryan Sykes, he argues that the the British Isles do not have a significant genetic contribution from any invasions, and that the inhabitants are genetically similar to the prehistoric island inhabitants.

I'm curious about this book, because it's an interesting idea. But as far as I know, he didn't submit it to a journal, and there has been no peer review of his findings. He just wrote a popular science book about his own original research challenging the conventional scientific view that the British Isles have had a series of invasions. I'm also worried because it turns out that this guy has a book about bigfoot dna, which is ridiculous and makes it look even more like he's a crank.

Here's my specific questions. Is the history in the book good? Is the genetic science in the book good? Was his research sound, and does it support his conclusions? If his research is bad, is the hypothesis that the Isles have had little genetic contribution from later invasions a good one? Or is it a fringe idea? Are there legitimate historians that argue this?

Heard about this recently, seems crazy if true.