Were FDR's executive orders seen as an overreach of executive powers by Congress like some members of Congress see Obama's actions today?

Was homosexuality viewed in a positive/neutral/negative light? Or was their concept of sexuality different than modern North American views?

I have seen the HBO tv show Rome several times and it largely seems to mesh with what little i know about roman society at the time. How accurate was the tv show's portrayal of the city and the culture of rome at the time? I am not asking about specific individuals but in general.

Specifically, how were they raised in the pre-Marian military?

Basically, I often come into discussions where I see discussions of history, and the refrain comes "x is an outdated and inaccurate notion going back to Victorian history!" ("Victorian" seems to carry approximately the same tone as "Hollywood" as an epithet impugning the historical truth of some idea.)

I see people criticizing the specific aspects of, e.g., what Gibbon wrote about the Byzantine Empire, but I don't usually see a general dismissal of, say, 18th century history in quite the same way.

Was Victorian history particularly prone to some types of errors? (Perhaps there were new methods of research coming to the fore (e.g., archaeology), but people hadn't yet realized their limitations, so new histories ended up making novel mistakes that older histories dependent on traditional archival research and written sources were less prone to?)

Or it just that history older than Victorian isn't a big problem (at least as far as being regarded as a reliable secondary source), so Victorian history is the oldest and least accurate history that's still widespread in mis-educating people?

A follow up question, what about other legendary tales? The miracles of Moses? Noah's arc? Some of these, especially Noah's arc, recur throughout history- why? Where do they come from?

Did they support the hostage takers? What was their response?

I was doing research for a paper comparing 18th Century social movements to those of today when I became sidetracked. Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of time to delve into the research of it but I am curious now.

I am watching the movie 'The kingdom of Heaven' and I see guards everywhere. In palaces, on the street, in houses, courtyards, you name it. Was this common in the 12th century or is it just made up by the movie? Thanks in advance!

Are they trying to say that thought about life and philosophy changed drastically? Or are they refering to it in a different way?

Essentially, how should the importance of events be judged? For example if you were tasked with summarizing the history of the USA, what method would you use to edit known history to best inform the reader. Are there contemporary debates on this issue?

From today's perspective, this event comes across as wholly wrong. It's described as evil and a genocide currently, but at the time, it must have been seen as a good thing, or at least the best option given the goals and constraints involved. But I cannot imagine how even the idea of a forced relocation over thousands of miles could be proposed favorably. I assume this is due to my inability to understand the situation as it was, which is why I ask for your help. How could the Indian Removal Act have been pitched as a good plan?

If there were any laws for annexing territories. Did the natives offer any sort of resistance?

Westmoreland, VA, Order Bk, Pt 1, 1690-92, Dorman 26 May 1692 William Booth was arrested to answer Lawrence Abbington in a plea The plaintiff by Robt. Brent his attorney, declareth that whereas John Blagdon, late of this county, deceased, was seized as of fee of and in a tract of land situate upon Appomattox Creek in this county and dieing intestate the land descended to Thomas Blagdon, son and heir of the said John, which Thomas dieing intestate and without issue the land descended to his two sisters Lyddia (sic) and Elizabeth as coheires of their brother. The plaintiff hath often requested the defendant to make partition, the which he denies to doe. The plaintiff prays the Writt de partitione facienda directed to the Sheriff to make partition Judgement is granted the plaintiff to have partition