And before you tell me to ask my Latin teacher -- that was fifteen years ago.

Genoese Crossbowmen receive a lot of praise whenever I read about them. I am not entirely sure what their reputation is based on.

• Were they famous because they were disciplined mercenaries first and foremost?

• Was their use of the crossbow special? Did they possess outstanding crossbow factories? Did they have a tradition of using them like the English and the Longbow?

• And why are no copycats if the Genoese had been so sought after?

• In regards to the last question, the crossbow is always said to be easy to learn (compared to a longbow for example). How true is that statement and did the Genoese also excel in shooting the crossbow?

• Related question: Are the Genoese the only ones that carried a pavese/pavise with themselves? It seems like a great addition for archers even.

I know that the Vikings landed in Newfoundland in the 1000s, but is there any evidence to suggest that they initiated a first plague which then spread South four-hundred years before Columbus?

Were troops on the Union side fighting to abolish slavery or were Confederate soldiers fighting to defend slavery?

Given that the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids served as buffers to prevent raids from the Arab tribes, and engaged in regular diplomatic relations with the ERE and the Persians, both empires must have been aware of the events happening to the south of those kingdoms. If they were aware, before the fall of Ghassan, did they percieve the conquests of Mohammed as a threat? If so what actions were taken by the empires to counter the threat?

I know for a lot of parts of the world, homosexual activity was largely prohibited, so there probably aren't many records on how ancient people had gay sex, or practices. It just seems like without modern technology, homosexual sexual activity would be much more.. different.

The distance seems great from the rhine to the baltics & north of the black sea, so why is it that whole area and group of peoples are mostly considered to be germanic? If the Romans considered mostly everyone north of them as barbaric and lumped them together then why is there a distinguishment of gauls and germans?

Would the Germans that Octavian & Varus versed be considered to be proto-scandinavians? Would the germanic people from the baltic region suchs as the visigoths & alani be considered to be more scythian? What about the vandals? How similar were their languages, culture, religion etc?

Basically where would you find them on a hierarchal scale? How wealthy were they? I imagine in a king's court they were higher but to what degree?

Followup question: did this status change in the Renessaince?

I know that the Mongols made it as far as the Holy Roman Empire, but did they ever make it up to Norway or any place close enough for them to have fought or traded?

current news has always had to have been really important, but I'm sure people gave it out for free before anybody started getting paid for it.

Is news as a business a very modern idea? I imagine that a long time ago, if somebody is going to go to some place that people from wherever they live do not usually go, than they are doing it for some other reason than just procuring information. When did "news" as we know it, become an industry of itself?

I understand that he reigned for 22 years, and that the empire was relatively stable and quiet during those years. However, based on what I've read of his read, his allowing Sejanus to take hold of power so unwittingly, and what seems like horrific debauchery at his villa on Capri, it seems like those later years of his reign would have trumped Caligula's short reign in terms of its negative impact on imperial prestige.

Napoleon, Louis XVIII, Charles X, Louis Philippe I, Napoleon III. They all ruled France until the 1870's, 81 years after the revolution. I know the regime changed with the revolution ( no more absolutism like in Versailles), but we are far from a democracy. I'm not French but when i was a kid i thought that after the revolution the country was free and democratic ( beside Napoleon but i never heard of the other rulers), i mean those republican ideals are so important to France's image, it seems to be the core and the base of this country, they are so proud of the '' liberté égalité fraternité''. French are also very proud of Napoleon , but why isn't he viewed as an evidence, the proof of the failure of the republic?

On a side note even the revolution itself is horrifying by the insane amount of blood shed, it seems more like a civil war than a noble fight against tyranny. I thought the revolution was a beautiful act like a ray of light in a dark night but in reality we witness blood, instability and the quick return of two emperors and monarchs.

So why this dichotomy? Did the revolution and the republic really failed? If so, why don't we hear more about this failure?