Hey, may sound like a very basic question, however, I am writing a speech and in this speech consists of what I did as aedile. I am going to say I kept buildings in perfect condition, however, knowing what buildings would be great. Thanks :)

Thank you in advance! [SOLVED]

From bugging US officials offices to assassinations it seems like the CIA failed many more times than they succeeded. While the KGB failed fewer times. Am I wrong in thinking this way or is there a reason it seems like that?

I've read his primary objective was to bring them back into the continental system and strangle their trade with Great Britain but did he have other plans beyond that? After other victories he usually annexed significant territories to France or his allies or installed his allies as local rulers. Did he have similar plans for Russia, especially Belorussia and Ukraine that had recently been Polish?

(Not sure if this is the right place, if not let me know and I'll remove it)
I'm writing a paper for history, and have kind of hit a wall. The professor gave us a list of terms where we pick one, and demonstrate how it was a pivotal turning point in history. (IE, without this event/term occurring the way it did, history would have taken a very different course.)
He shot down my ideas and reasoning on both the Sugar Act and on slavery. I've got a few other terms to weed through, and just wanted to hear your opinions on if they were a major turning point in the course of American history (within the time frame of early settlement to 1777)
I'm considering King Georges War, the Albany Plan, The Virginia Resolutions, the Stamp Act Congress, or the Declaratory Act.
and I'm really not sure which events in themselves would represent a major change to history. Any help/opinions would be greatly appreciate.
Edit: Seems like Lexington and Concord could easily be argued as one of the most major incidents that led to the war (at least out of the stuff I can write about)

I can't find it anywhere. Thank you in advance. [SOLVED]

I was reading Japan's isolation on wiki and it's just a very watered down version and I was looking for more detail.

Fallow up question: why did America force Japan to trade with the west in 1853?

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.

By Charles Darwin, M.A.,

Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies; Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.' From the First Edition LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1859. Down, Bromley, Kent, October 1st, 1859.

The reason Hollywood is the movie capital of the world is because of Edison and his patent stinginess in the North, if i recall correctly.

I recall reading an article a week or two back (correct me if i'm wrong), California is home to 3/4 of the countries artists, writers, etc... and a large portion of California's, most notably Los Angeles, gets it income from the Arts.

Is it fair to say that had Edison not been so stingy with his Patents that this would be a different story?

First of all apologies if using the term Viking is considered bad here as I know obviously that isn't the actual name for the people but more of a generalization of the Nordic people who left their countries to raid and plunder.

I just wondered that in the areas that they held dominion over, say parts of Ireland and Scotland. What was the Norse peoples reaction to the fact that they had a different form of Paganism? Was it looked down on as bad how Christians looked down upon Vikings or were they cohesively allowed to live on without trouble?

Higher standard in terms of accuracy, pitch, rhythm, etc.

What were they?

How were his theories viewed?

This stems from a passage read long ago in the shelves of a Barnes and Noble; that the the slaves themselves were (forgive my slang interpretation) fine-tuning the art of disobedience (work slow downs, incompetence work ethics, annoying, getting under the skin) doing everything humanly possible without getting whipped or killed to be disruptive.

The book concluded that this alone, the slaves alone through their own means were tearing and eventually making the system untenable. At least, that's my recall. Is there any basis for believing this?

I've always been told in school that these leaders used cults of personality to force ideology on their nation, but my own readings have brought me to believe that they were much more organic expressions of genuine support from sections of the people.

To what extent are each of these stories true?

Sorry if this isn't super specific, but I'm asking about what it was called before the widespread usage of the term "America."

For example how would they gather the food, armor, weapons, ammunition, etc. how long would it take to gather these materials? Who get paid for the materials gathered, I'm assuming of course that the people who supply these materials would want some compensation for them. I know that camp followers were a thing with pre-modern armies, how would they factor in to all of this if at all?

I posed this question last weekend, It got a few votes but no answer. So I'm posting it again to see if I get better luck this time.

I'm most interested in the period going from the beginning of the revolution until the Coup of 18 Brumaire and the subsequent consulate of Napoleon.