Examples:
Emperor Domitian was reviled by the Senate and historians of that time as a mad tyrant but some now consider him just a brutal but effective emperor

or how barbarians were hated for extinguishing the light of Rome at first but were then romanticized into freedom fighters rising up against their oppressors.

What causes these changes in opinion? Is it the discovery of new information? Is it people of a particular time trying to put past events into a modern context? Both?

Thanks.

For instance, I would imagine that it takes a lot of strength to swing a large sword or war ax, especially for extended periods of time as would be done in battles. So what did these people do in preparation for wielding such a weapon?

Ok. So decimate literally means to kill one tenth of a legion of roman soldiers right ? Or does it? Anyone have an early source for this ? As to decimate seems to be defined as taking a tenth - a tithe - in taxes around 16th and 17th century CE. Was the bloody roman decimation story made up later to fit the word??? Thanks

I've been reading a bit about his invasions of Britain, during which he appears to make multiple amateur mistakes, if I can call them that way. Don't get me wrong, if I were in his shoes I would never have been able to get more than 10 miles away from Gaul if my life depended on it - but I started wondering if there is anything more to Caesar than his daring crossing of the Rubicon, as well as a little bit of "being in the right place at the right time".

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!"

Was there any widespread increase in standard of living that an area might experience after being taken under Roman control?

Not only does blue seem to be the traditional color of police officer uniforms, but even things such as police lights are traditionally blue as well.

I am just wondering.

Reading up on the positions and titles of the two men it seems they are entirely similar:

• Both achieved absolute rule over the Roman state
• Both nominally maintain the image of a republic
• Both held a collection of offices and titles
• Both held the title "imperator" specifically

So what qualifies Octavius as an emperor but not Caesar? It seems to me that either both should be classed as such or neither should.

He had already fulfilled his goal (?) of conquering the Persian Empire, so what drove him to go looking for even more conquests when his empire was already arguably unmanageable?

Sorry if the title is confusing.

I'm about one-half finished with a biography of Thomas Jefferson. I'm aware that Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention. But that seems strange to me. If Jefferson was such a great thinker, writer, and statesman, I would assume that he would have been recalled from France to assist with drafting the Constitution. After all, he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

What am I missing? Was Jefferson's reputation for greatness formed after the Constitution, during his presidency? Was Jefferson invited to the Constitutional Convention but declined, or was he snubbed? Or was his role in France greater than I understand? Or is there some other dynamic at work? Was Jefferson jealous that he missed out on contributing to the Constitution?

Thanks for any responses!

While King Philip IV of France was making trumped up charges against the order, why didn't the organization try to organize some form of resistance? I always thought the Templars had some significant military strength.

Seems like especially at the time there would have been a lot of racial tensions building up specially with an interracial couple be married on television.

Like I said up top, do you think he was in amazing shape and fighting in the front lines, or do you think he was standing behind the phalanxes and just commanding?

Thanks

Hey guys! I have a few questions.

1. Was it really divided into different countries, and if it was, how was it ruled? Also, if it was, how would the military work? Would there be a Holy Roman Army, or would the countries included just use their own personal ones, (with their own weapons, uniforms and such,) just allied with the others?

2. I know Napoleon destroyed it, but how? Why did some of the countries once inside of it ally with France, if they had a ruling monarch all their lives? How was it divided?