Did they think they were ripe for revolution as well?

Why are the other states so much larger than the east coast states (especially New England area)? Was it just population growth that led to larger state boundaries? Exclusively natural borders? Or something else?

Let's assume price is no object and that I'm a competent polyglot - I'm a wealthy merchant or natural philosopher or noble or clergyman, and I want to see the biggest pile of books the accessible world has to offer. Maybe there are rumors of even larger libraries in the Arab lands or the Orient, but I wouldn't feel safe or want to spend the time traveling to them and probably couldn't read the books there anyway.

I have a couple of years to spend finding the best library in Europe; where do I go?

Been studying silk road history. Came across this interesting topic. Throughout the history of nomadic empires we often see legitimization efforts proceed conquest. Thus we get the patronage of things like religion, monumental architecture, and biographical literature.

But interestingly enough under Hulagu Khan and Kubulai Khan, we get the patronage of astronomy in Persia and China respectively. We see the construction of massive observatories like at Maragheh, and the movement of famous astronomers like al-Tusi and Jamal ad-Din. Leading up to the famous Timurid prince Ulugh Beg creating the Samarkand observatory.

Why would these nomadic powers patronize astronomy? What would they get out of it?

It is a common assumption that bestselling books nowadays are mainly commercial, cheap stuff, whereas popular litterature a few centuries ago would only include masterpieces. My line of thought is that the proportion of bad litterature among the best-sellers was as high as it is today, and many bestsellers will be totally forgotten in a few years, maybe decades, as it happened for the last centuries. Only the masterpieces will resist the passing of time.

So, in which proportion were the bestsellers' shelves in libraries full of bad, long-forgotten litterature ? And what kind of books were they ?

Edit - I would be more specifically interested in answers concerning Europe, or French Litterature, but I'll take whatever you give me, eh.

In movies, a common trope is for the bad guy to kidnap a leading nuclear physicist to build them a bomb or something. Is this rooted in reality? Has a top scientist been coerced into this sort of thing before?

I was reading a article about Marcus Licinius Crassus and I was wondering where did he store alle his wealth? Was there a banking system in place and what did someone more powerful from just grabbing his gold / coins?

I've always wondered, ever since I went to York as a kid!

A thread posted earlier about Roman body hair had a series of photographs of Roman artwork posted in the top reply, and all of it (or, at least, a majority of it) was very detailed and had a level of depth not seen until the Renaissance. What caused this? I know that the collapse of the Roan Empire destroyed access to a lot of knowledge and to a reasonable (for the period) level of cleanliness and healthcare, but when, or rather, why, did art take such a dramatic fall? Was it gradual or very sudden (over the course of fifty to one hundred years?

I've heard the Romans persecuted Christians for their reluctance in observing Roman rituals. This they see as a treason to the Roman state. I don't know anything about other religions though.

Did the Romans persecute the druids, bacchae, etc for similar reason? Why did they allow certain others, e.g. bona dea, mithraism, etc?

I know there were a lot of white people who helped slaves in the underground railroad. Where there ever any rich people who would buy slaves to set them free ? In school they taught us that even at one time it was illegal to set slaves free, and they could still be tracked down and sold again. So basivally using modern terms was there ever situations like this

"Hey man i think slavery is totally fucked up, and even if i set you free they can atill hunt you down and sell you and your fanily again even separate you. So instead why not just chill on my farm. I got a second cabin, three bedrooms, nice wood stove, covered porch leading to an outhouse. And I'll pay you good money just under the table and don't tell nobody." And then they necame best friends

It is understandable why countries in which European empires ruled over the native populations without eradicating them, largely deconstructing their previous modes of government and diverting their resources away from them for hundreds of years (i.e. India and many African countries) often face such difficult issues today with poverty and corruption.

However, in countries where European empires and their settlers largely wiped out the native populations (mostly in the New World), leaving people mostly of European heritage and culture to govern themselves in a European manner, it has struck me that the most successful examples are those in the Anglosphere. Does this stem from a particular way in which the British governed their colonies, or are there other reasons?