He allowed the return of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis, then banished Athanasius, and then readmitted Arius. Additionally, he was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. It appears as though he changed his mind about Arians and joined them, could this be true?

I am currently making my way through Vikings (s02e01 - no spoilers please!) and some things have been bothering me - among them how unprotected the crew where on viking ships. Why didn't they build proper roofs or something on their ships? Did they? I am sure they could and I know the show really isn't history...

Hi I'm doing some history research right now and I cannot find any primary sources of Vlad the impaler. Help?!

This is something I've been fascinated with for a while. Do we know much about emerging wealth gaps or how people created positions of power for themselves?

Sorry if this question is too broad.

Apologies if this has been asked before, I tried searching and didn't come up with exactly the answer is as looking for.

Having been raised in a Christian school, all I ever got was the overly patriotic version of the Revolutionary War history. Complete with movie clips from The Patriot in class, and trips to Lexington and Concord to hear about how the Redcoats were dumb for standing in rows.

Obviously, the revolution was started by different men with different motives, but all I've ever heard about is the men who wanted to throw off the shackles of Britain.

Were there any men or factions with hidden agendas to install a king in America, or who stood to make a lot of money by separating from Britain? Or was the revolution purely motivated by a desire to start a democracy?

I'm also curious about America's supporters in the revolution. I've heard that America got support from France because of the economic blow it would send to Britain, but were there any exclusive trade agreements between the colonies and France that helped cement that aid?

Thanks for any answers!

Great military theorists can be taken to mean individuals like Clausewitz (19th Century) or Fuller (20th Century) whose ideas were implemented into actual strategies, operational planning, etc.

In 1800, Spain controlled all the territory from Mexico to Colombia, with the exception of Great Britain controlling some of the Atlantic coast. Spain and GB lost control to Mexico (which spanned from its current territory to Costa Rica) and Colombia (which included Panama). In the mid-1800s, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and El Salvador each became independent countries.

How did this section of land evolve from part of two countries (Spain and Great Britain) to another two countries (Mexico and Colombia) to nine countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia)?

Hello. I study museology and in one of my texts I ran across the phrase "Aut cum scutum, aut in scutum". In the description it was said that was a phrase used in Ancient Sparta by the mothers of the soldiers going to war. I found it really cool, but I wonder how accurate it is. It was really used, and if so, is there any ancient text mentioning it?

Also, I'm terribly sorry if this is the wrong place to make this question. Thanks in advance.

I was listening to "The History of Rome" podcast and Mike Duncan glosses over how Scipio arrived with his army to New Carthage in Spain. New Carthage is far enough south that I would think an overland expedition would leave plenty of time to be intercepted. However it didn't sound like he came by sea because he met a naval force at the city, not traveled with one to the city.

I'm just wondering where the other Carthaginian armies were in Spain at this time. Why was New Carthage left so vulnerable and how did Scipio manage to get all the way down there?

Towards the end of the French ancien regime, Jean François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse, was tasked with circumnavigating the globe in an attempt to both duplicate the feat of Captain Cook, and add to the monarchy's understanding of the world. His two ships -- the Astrolabe and Boussole -- never returned to France, though logs from the first half of the expedition made their way back to France through their Russian interpreter, who disembarked in Russia.

Later expeditions concluded that Laperouse's fleet came to grief off Vanikoro, an island in French Polynesia. My question is: how do we know this, and how certain are we of it?

[Edit to add an interesting side-fact: a young officer named Napoleon Bonaparte applied to join the doomed expedition. He was turned down.]

I saw people discussing the Armenian genocide and someone also brought up the Circassian expulsion from Russia in the 1860's. I had never heard of this before and I'd like to get some more knowledge on the topic. For those not aware Circassia lies along the northeastern beaches of the Black Sea, between Georgia and the Crimean Peninsula.

I just tried searching this on google, but didn't find any answer.

I've been reading a lot of Victorian-era novels, and in every one that features upper-class types it frequently mentions them going out to dine over multi-course meals of fatty and exotic meats, and consuming lots of alcohol. Then in the mornings it talks about their breakfasts of omelets and such, and then they lunch together at some restaurant somewhere.

It just seems to me that if this is accurate of the lifestyles of upper-class Victorians, then they would be consuming a hell of a load of calories - and they never mention any form of exercise. Obviously, the obesity rate of Victorian-era Britain was, like, non-existent, so how did they keep thin with those kinds of diets? Did they just have super small portions?

Especially since the Germans later considered themselves the Holy Roman Empire...

A revolution, lets say within the last 100 years or so, 150 years max, against a democratic government that has a well equipped military under its command. A revolution begun by the people themselves, and not instigated by another country meddling in their affairs.