I know I read something about Russia wanting to reclaim the land but can't remember where or what it was!

I'm building an RPG setting inspired by 1700's style myths and stories, a sort of Dick Turpin meets Midsummer Nights Dream. I have a few sticking points, especially in regards to the law; both in how a case was built, brought to trial and convicted, and in how and who the courts answered to most accusations. I know I'm way off of a modern Police force, and the way I've been dubiously dabbling away at the courts is to assume that they are corrupt and inaccessible to all but the wealthy and powerful.
Here's what I have built at the moment: I have three institutions, Magisters, Bailiffs and Wardens, both the Bailiffs and Wardens answer to the Magisters but the Bailiffs have higher jurisdiction than Wardens. Magisters build the cases, assembling evidence, witnesses and arguments, they might act like modern detectives but their actual agents on the ground are the Bailiffs, whose job it is to act as the enforcers to the Magisters, acquiring evidence and bringing criminals to court acting as a sort of beat-cop analogue, lastly the Wardens whose jurisdiction is sharply limited to the forests and specifically in poachers, deserters, highwaymen, cultists and other criminals who make the forest their home, they can bring a case to the Magisters or Bailiffs or can act on their command, but mostly they're a self sufficient group who are capable of enforcing the law on their own terms.
So what else ought I be paying mind to? Any real life analogues or things of significance I'm missing?

Along those lines, how do ancient universities (let's say in the 1600s) compare to their modern counterparts? Some more specific questions:

• One big reason to attend uni today is the potential for a much higher salary. Was this the case in earlier times as well?

• Today every student has to pick their major or specialization. Has this always been a thing? If not, when did it first start?

• Most modern students have a side job or two, in addition to their studies. Was this the case in medieval times as well? More broadly speaking, was being a student considered a 'full time job?'

Is there any other examples of conquests like the Normans did E.G going to England and becoming the nobility and like they did in Sicily? Mainly looking for European examples but happy to learn about other places in the world as well

I was listening to the latest instalment of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History and he stated that Germany grabbed Lenin from Switzerland and sent him back to Russia. This got me thinking, how does one cross a front in World War 1? Carlin described it as involving multiple trains and a ferry but didn't explain the actual process.

Both political parties were in their infancy during the Gladstone/Disraeli era of British politics (with the Tories being slightly older), but what were their (as opposed to specifically Gladstone and Disraeli's) core ideologies and where did their views actually differ and to what extent?

North and South Korea were somewhat independent states before the Korean War, but how did they get to that point where they were so different?

Winston Churchill certainly is a controvertial character whose persona dominates the history of the UK in the last century and represents the indomitable will of its people. However, he was much disliked by many British military figures during his time as First Lord of the Admiralty for his deep involvement in military matters as a civilian. During the meetings with Roosevelt (later Truman) and Stalin to decide the grand strategy and after-war division of Europe, Churchill often times had to be reigned in by Roosevelt and later Truman as to not further aggrivate the situation with the Soviets. Churchill also wanted an immediate invasion of the USSR after WWII to defeat the Soviets, and was subsequently voted out of office almost unanimously. In the US, we weren't taught any of this. We were only taught that Churchill was the bulldog of the UK, the face of indomitable will and fighting spirit, and overall a very great leader. I am interested to know both how history is taught in the UK in regards to Churchill, and how he is generally viewed by the public.

I am seriously wondering about this, how did ancient cultures address this whole deed and does any archaeological evidence exist?

If its from the Bible, then which part and who wrote it. I am pretty sure Jesus himself never said that, even it was attributed to him later on. So, I am trying to understand the historical context of the idea, its political and cultural implications/reasons.

Why has gold been prized in cultures on every livable continent since time immemorial? Yes, it's shiny; yes, it's uncommon. What is the earliest record of mankind's obsession with gold?

Me and my roommate are drunk as all get out and he's over here trying to tell me that there's no way we could build/replicate the Egyptian pyramids with modern technology? Who's right?

How would it compare to modern day South Chicago?

Chris Hedges, in his book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, writes that the language reading levels for American political speech declined from approximately 11th grade for the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 to around grade 7 in the early 1990's. My impression from looking at McGuffey's readers is that 7th grade reading level in the 19th century might equal or surpass grade 11 today. This puzzles me about what Hedges reports. Would these reported reading levels be based on reading levels of 1990 and later, or would they relate to those prevalent at the time the speech was made? And how much did the reading level for a given number of years education vary over the period from 1858 to, e.g. 1990?