Just wondering

I am currently reading "Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. One question I have is- has there been any research done on what our current population might be if Genghis Khan had never lived or gained power?

From some Google and Reddit searching I found a plethora of information and research on how many people he may have killed (I saw estimated 40 million somewhere) as well as how many decedents he has (1 in 200 men) but what about how he impacted our modern population?

There are currently ~7 billion people on Earth, has anyone done the math to see what the difference would be if those 40 million(?) people were never killed as a result of Genghis Khan's actions?

This can be expanded to the Mongol empire as a whole, not Genghis Khan specifically.

If the Mongols hadn't expanded so far, killed millions of people they conquered and millions more by spreading the Black Plague what might our population numbers look like now?

I imagine adding ~40 million people able to reproduce(I realize not all those killed would end up reproducing), into the population 800 years ago would lead to a far greater population today.

I thought about submitting this to /r/historywhatif but before I get speculation from redditors I wanted to see if any real research had been done on the topic.

You have the:

• War of the 3rd Coalition
• War of the 4th Coalition
• War of the 5th Coalition
• War of the 6th Coalition
• War of the 7th Coalition

And there were a couple of wars before those. They happened so frequently and quickly, was there really no reason to not call it one continuous war?

I've been looking into the Roman army and I saw a scholar suggest that the army played an important role in the success of the emperors in the first century AD.

Was the support of the army really that important for the emperors? How did emperors keep their support?

Reposting because I lacked the foresight to avoid April Fool's Day

This is my first AskHistorians, so I hope I'm doing it right! I am currently an undergraduate studying history, and don't really know where to start on this one, seeing as I do not speak/read Russian. I had come across the mention that after Nikolai Bukharin was executed, his son was taken away from Bukharin's surviving wife. He was subsequently raised without knowledge of his father in a KGB orphanage. This brought a few questions to mind:

1. How much truth to this is there, and are there any good books discussing the specific case?
2. I've heard the phrase "children of the enemies of the people"- was this a term used specifically for cases such as this, or was it more of a blanket term?
3. Finally, like the title asks- how common was the practice of taking children of formerly prominent party members and raising them unawares of their parents' political role?

Thank you in advance for any/all responses, I'll be keeping an eye on this and commenting when I can! :)

I'm writing a book, and I've struck out with regard to finding information. I'm curious as to the route a train would have taken from New York City to Georgia in the early 1940s.

Would it have left from Penn Station? Grand Central? What bridge/tunnel would have crossed to get into New Jersey?

I'm trying to get some information on wages for typical jobs in the 18th century. I've read a range of sources, but they seem to vary wildly.

Using a "labourer" as a baseline, I just read that a typical labourer of this time period would earn 2s (British Shillings) a day. If true, that means a labourer would earn £3 a month.

But another source, looking at dock labourers and foremen in London, states they would have earned 3s and 3s 6d per month, respectively.

I also have data on merchants in the British East India Company, who would have apparently earned roughly £6 per month.

Also the Governor General of the VOC (Dutch East India Company) who would have earned 1200 Guilders per month (£120).

What is right, what isn't?

Of course the most obvious example of this is business attire, with the "uniform" of dark suit, solid collared shirt, and tie. But men's casual clothing is also plainer, and with fewer options, than women's clothing. There are issues of gender and sexuality at play here, obviously, and it seems to me that there are also social/cultural forces as well.

Also, do the claims of certain historical figures (Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, etc.) having autism or Asperger's have any merit?

N.B. - I hope I am not offending anyone with this question; I tried to address it as sensitively as possible.

It seems like it would have made more sense to fight alongside the Chinese Nationalist government against the Communists than let the Communists take over and try to contain them later.

I'm seeking to better my understanding of, and knowledge on Korean history with any literature that someone with expertise could recommend to me. I've looked through the booklist and it's quite scant on anything without a focus on North Korea. Some specific areas I'm interested in are the 1876-1910 period, and Korea's colonialism; the Korean War; and South Korea's transformation after 1961. There are some books that I've found to help me, again, wondering if someone would recommend them or not.

• Michael Seth's A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present
• Kyung Moon Hwang's A History of Korea
• Carter Eckert's Korea Old and New: A History
• Chun-Gil Kim's The History of Korea
• Keith Pratt's Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea
• Bruce Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History
• Michael Breen's The Koreans: Who They Are, What They Want, Where Their Future Lies
• Byung-Kook Kim and Ezra Vogel's The Park Chung Hee Era.

On the Korean War, I've only read Cuming's The Korean War: A History, but it felt more like an overview of things. I'm also aware of his bias. The books I found were Fehrenbach's This Kind of War, Halberstam's The Coldest Winter and Millet's The War for Korea, 1950-1951. On Halberstam, I've heard that it reads more like biography of MacArthur, and heavily focuses on the American actions during the war, rather than the war itself.

This question originates from me and a friend watching 300: Rise of an empire (I know, I'm sorry). He was adamant that none of the Greeks falling in the water could've survived because surely they wouldn't have gotten swimminglessons. This seemed unlikely to me, looking at current navys.

So all around; What was the training of Greek soldiers in that era like?

Bonus question; How likely is it that Greek sailors were tought how to swim?

Modern day Russia is only 15% Athiest. Did people flock back to religion? Or was the elimination uneffective?