I know Mao gets put up there with most evil dictators of the 20th century, like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. However, someone recently told me that he had shared power with 3 other people known as the Gang of Four, and I was wondering what was more accurate.

Hi, hoping for a bit of advice/information here. If this is the wrong place then please let me know where I should be asking (tried posting in askacademia but nothing so far). Basically I am halfway through a 4 year undergad programme (Scottish MA in Classics) and would like to increase my employability as much as possible. I was thinking of a) taking a masters such as war studies and then seeing what I can do b) doing some sort of admin/office work, perhaps ideally for public sector/civil service stuff. The things that I can think of so far are... *1. Study hard *2. Do work placements/internships -I completed a voluntary placement and will try and get more next year but its summer now and I'm back home overseas *3. Get some sort of online qualification *4. Do online courses (done one but not sure how useful it will be) *5. Ask civil service people directly (done and awaiting replying) Any advice/help would be much appreciated.

I realise that "the Roman army" is somewhat vague, so the timeline that I am most interested in is more along the lines of the Pax Romana period.

I am wondering how high or low a chance it was in order to survive a whole 25 years in the Roman army as an auxiliary. Which I understand was the time demanded in order to become a citizen of Rome.

It is not just a full tour of duty that I think when about this. auxiliares who were given citizenship as a reward for some action in battle or under a different circumstance.

Sorry if my language is a little clunky, I am not a native speaker.

I'm asking for a percentage. Dependant on period, location and branch of course, but I'm interessted in all of them.

i want detailed hierarchy of social classes in ancinet egypt. i have got this one: I (highest) - pharaoh, aristocracy, priests II (high) - bureaucracy (officials) and soldiers III - merchants and craftsmen IV - members of rural community (peasants) V - slaves

i think that this hierarchy is not complete. many books say that members of rural community are only cultivators. where are cattleman, fishers, aviculturists?

Who was he in history, if he existed at all? What made the Arthurian legends the melting pot of every mythology of Western Europe?

I read that the Emperor of Japan is the only monarch currently going by the title of emperor, but I was curios why. Japan is not an empire, but I understand that it was a term used to help differentiate him from the Shogun for westerners. But what I don't understand is why the Kinds or Queens of Britain never took on the title. I know that Victoria was considered the Empress of India, but that title seemed to be less important than Queen of England. Was there any reason the title was not upgraded to Emperor?

I have no real historical knowledge of the region, and very little about the time period more broadly, but what little I've read about Kilwa was fascinating. Any suggestions would really be appreciated! Cheers.

I'm interested in the historical person of Nicholas, not the legend of Santa Claus/its evolution (except for where it directly relates to him as a historical person).

Some stuff I'd be interested in:

• Is his actual existence as a person in the 3-4th centuries widely accepted, or is there debate? What are some of the arguments/evidence on both sides?

• What are the odds that the remains in Bari, Italy actually belong to Nicholas?

• Was he actually at the Council of Nicaea?

• Where and when does our information about Nicholas come from? If this is too broad, limit it to some of the most well-known or prominent info

• What do we know about his time as bishop (or just his ministry in general)?

Please don't limit any answers just to my questions. They are more like guidelines :)

Compared to the rich theological debate that differentiated churches in Europe, I wonder if the middle eastern churches (Coptic, Assyrian, maybe Armenian?) did the same.

I know that the Byzantines were doing pretty well in the 5th and 6th centuries, but how did the fall in the west affect them? I mean, if America lost half of its territory today it would be seen as quite a blow. Did it have that same type of feel?

If there was, what are some of their most known operations?

I'm entering into middle and high school social science teaching in 2016 and will lose access to the thousands upon thousands of resources my University's library has access to. I want to take advantage of my resources and try to procure the material that is most useful for my profession but that is also worthwhile in and of its own right. I realize I'm not giving you all a specific field to narrow down your recommendations so feel free to suggest anything from your specialty area or material that you would recommend to anyone regardless. I appreciate the help and suggestions!

Scandinavian Vikings were portrayed in Nazi Germany as a pure Germanic type. How would vikings likely react to race?

Like the Ptolemies or Seleucids and other Hellenistic successor kingdoms, or the various incarnations of the Persian empire, or any other ancient example you can think of.

I know that the above kingdoms named their various elite regiments, like Alexander's companions or the Achaemenid Immortals, or perhaps the Seleucid Chrysaspides and Chalkaspides, but those were exceptional units. I I don't know of any kingdom or nation that had regular military units that they named, let alone numbered. When ancient historians describe armies, (e.g. Polybios in book XXXI of his histories on the Seleucids) they mostly seem to refer to groups by ethnic origin. (Nisaean horsemen, etc.) I'm not sure these historians would know of any names such groups had for themselves, though. But perhaps these were only short-standing levies which didn't get names. Do we know of any more named units?

I know the navy was very important and prestigious for the Hellenistic monarchs in particular, and I know that ships were named, but I don't know of any fleets being named. The Imperial Romans typically named them after their harbours, i.e. Classis Misenensis. Did anybody else do this?

I know that (foreign) mercenaries played a big role in various armies, (like the Persians employing Greek hoplites) but I've never heard of any being organised in named units or companies. Were they?

And on a slightly different but related note, do we know how the Roman practice of giving their legions cognomen as well as numbers started? (Legio II Augusta, Legio VI Ferrate, etc.) From the timeline and from common sense I assume it only began once units acquired a more permanent nature in the first century BC, but other than that I don't know who started it or why. I mean, the purpose of fostering unit identity is obvious enough, but do any ancient writers discuss this? Is it documented elsewhere?

Thanks to anyone indulging my curiosity!

What were the motives for the US to go to war, besides the Containment policy?

It's a pretty long book at around 1000 pages that gives a survey of the more strategic level decisions and motivations of each leader. There were two editions published, one around 1993 and another in the early 2000s... I just can't remember the name and it's driving me crazy as I would like to read it again. I think it has a red cover if I remember correctly and was pretty highly acclaimed on release. Thanks for any help!

I recently moved house and in the process have shelved a lot of my old history books from school, university, and graduate school, which had previously been stored in inaccessible boxes. I'm looking to spend the summer going through some re-reading of areas of history I haven't read in for a while.

Here's what I have on Early Modern Spain:

-J.H. Elliott, Imperial Spain 1469-1716

-R. Trevor Davies, The Golden Century of Spain 1501-1621

-s/a, Spain in Decline 1621-1700

-Geoffrey Parker, Europe in Crisis 1598-1648

-John Stoye, Europe Unfolding 1648-1688

-Charles Petrie, Philip II of Spain

Obviously these books are very out of date, and I'm looking for a refresher in some more contemporary scholarship. Are there any particular good, current overview texts, or any Review articles summarising recent scholarship? I do have access to London research libraries and JStor, but as this isn't an area of history I've studied for over a decade I really wouldn't know where to begin.