I've been taking Latin for four years and this still isn't very clear to me.

Apparently Roman women were given the names of their fathers' families. This obviously pretty common even today- usually women have their father's last name, not their mother's.

But my Latin teacher said that all the women in a Roman family would have the same first name. Like two sisters who were the daughter of Claudius would both be named Claudia. How did this work? Did they not go by their first names ever and use nicknames? Were they called Claudia Minor and Claudia Major? Also how did this work for slave-girls, who didn't necessarily know their fathers?

And didn't Romans already have their family name as a 'last name' too? The main character in my Latin textbook is named Quintus Caecilius Iucundus and his father was named Lucius Caecilius Iucundus. Presumably 'Caecilius Iucundus' functions as a family name or a 'last name'. IIRC Iucundus was like their 'tribe' name and Caecilius applied to their family specifically. So would a daughter just be named Caecilia Iucunda, without a third name?

And what happened when they got married? Did they change their first name, the way women today change their last name? My Latin textbook is making this more confusing. Two of the characters are married and have the name- Domitia and Domitian. But with other couples in the story- Caecilius & Metella and Salvius & Rufilla they have different names.

It just seems odd that they wouldn't have names, even with gender roles at the time, individual names seem like something instinctual for humans.

Thanks!

Why did we end all of the "-us" names? They sounded so epic. When did they fade out? How long did they stay? Are there any similar names that countries that were a part of the roman empire still name them similarly?

I've read plenty of stuff about US-USSR relations during the Cold War, and I know the Allies weren't exactly thrilled to team up with Stalin in WWII, but most of the stuff I see seems to just take for granted that the communists were bad guys and that was reason enough to hate them and go to war. How did this start? When and why did the world line up on either side of the communism vs capitalism fight?

I've heard of Roman statues in Mexico and Roman ships off the coast of Brazil. But, I got that information off of cracked.com. Is there any definitive historical evidence of ancient Phoenicians or the like having visited the New World?

Is it plausible that Gnostic belief systems influenced early Christians to believe the Jesus Christ was more than just a man(ie divine)?

By that I mean, are there psychologists (and/or historians) who attempt to explain the decisions and thought processes of historical figures and have it make sense in relation to their own time? Sorry if this is a vague or confusing question.. I was just driving today and wondered about the "why" of decisions...

From what I've read it seems like the empire dissolved when the emperor of Austria surrendered to Napoleon and abdicated the throne. Why wasn't the HRE recreated after Waterloo. Was it because of disputes between Prussia and Austria? And if they were going to create the German Confederation as a successor institution, why not just call it the Holy Roman Empire?

I assume that something similar to the printing press would have been used (although with just a tonne more blocks of type) But how would typing have worked? Would there have to have been a handwritten copy to be sent to publishers? Was a Latinized version of Mandarin/Cantonese/Wu/Min/Hakka used with western typewriters? Or some other option?

I know many of the claims involving the number of people, etc. are believed to be false, but is there a constructed historical narrative of the event?

This is the response I've received when asking why the race seemingly stopped at the moon landings rather than continuuing on to other planets and moons.

I realize there have been wealthy people who could buy influence ever since there has been a United States, but it seems to me that they've done just that: bought and peddled influence, as opposed to just buying their ways into office. Am I off base, or are we seeing something new in politics in terms of the access wealth provides?

What exactly made him so polarizing as a leader? And why were some so loyal to him?

Basically this questions kind of bothers me since I graduated. Earlier this year my history teacher said that before WW1 Germany was too weak to be a Great Power but too strong to be considered secondary. Is this true?