I get that he is very infamous especially with surviving so many crazy freak murder attempts but historically speaking what did he do?

Since matches were invented in the 1820s, what quick, portable method of fire starting did, for example, George Washington's army use to light their cannon fuses during the American Revolution?

All I can think of are stone roads but others must've had them before no?

I wanted to learn about collective farming because I heard it mentioned in a discussion about the USSR. I understand it starved a lot of people, but not how or why.

The books are Cicero by Anthony Everitt which is a great book but still pop history and then Rubicon by Tom Holland which is... well, you probably already have your own opinion on it.

Any recommendations?

With St. Petersburg being the capital at the time, I would think he would want to take his armies there. Instead, he went even farther into the country to strike at Moscow. Why?

I can understand how the flu would spread on mainland continents, but I'm wondering about the effects of the flu in remote areas, specifically Hawaii. Did the flu reach Hawaii? Where the casualty rates the same as on the mainland?

I thought cavalry was supposed to be on the flanks?

Was there a change in cavalry doctrine in Europe? If there was when did this take place and why?

Was Waterloo just an unusual case? If it was what caused both Wellington and Napoleon to concentrate cavalry in the center?

EDIT: I know why the cavalry in the center on both sides attacked. I want to know why they were deployed in the center in the first place instead of being concentrated mostly on the flanks.

If it were the early 1800s and some enterprising seafarer has just completed a daring 'round the world voyage, picking up Mongolians, Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders. He's got them in shackles and takes them to a slaving market - can he sell them? How would society look at that? I know that the bulk of slaves were black, but was it a hard and fast rule or was it just tradition? I know it's a terribly unlikely scenario, but I've been wondering about it and thought you guys would be able to help. Many thanks!

What would have been the accepted age of sexual maturity in Rome? Would it depend on the man's age? How would it have compared to that of other countries, or even other regions of the empire?

You've probably at least heard of this kind of opinion article: <x> English words that should be banned in <year>. Selfie, phablet, twerking, etc.

Hence my question: are there any words that we use today, often without thinking about it at all, that when were originally formed were regarded as ridiculous and gained widespread acceptance only after a period of time?

Many thanks for considering the question, and I look forward to hearing about some of the answers.

Help appreciated I googled this and no clear answers came up.

I realize they have relatively different objectives as combatants, but there seems like there could be a lot of overlap.

Translation is an imperfect art. Sources cited in research may rely on translated works. What obligation does a historian have to disclose who translated the primary document?

To truly analyse an ancient Chinese text for example, must you have the ability to translate it yourself? How do historians deal with this need for a middle-man when reviewing primary documents?

I'm taking a class on Alexander the Great and we're obviously doing plenty of reading. As I'm reading about Persia and Arabia I'm wondering what their religion was like? Additionally, it seems as though every aspect of daily life in the Middle East is related to Islam today; what was daily life like? Especially in comparison to Greece/Macedonia?

I was born in an area of the United States with a extremely large population of very conservative Christians. I heard primarily two reasons for their strong support of Israel:

• They believe that the Jews are "God's chosen people", and that we should side with them for that reason. Some believe that God will defend Israel from attack, and so it is to our military advantage to side with them. Frequently quoted in this regard is Genesis 12:3. "I [God] will bless those who bless you [Abram], and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
• They believe that establishing Jewish control over the historical land of Israel is a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ. By supporting the nation of Israel, they move the schedule along.

I'm curious whether these are the actual historical reasons for this support, and also when and why it arose, since it doesn't (so far as I know) have any roots in Christianity prior to several hundred years ago. What motivations were those who started the movement propelled by?

I'd also like some recommendations for scholarly books on the history of Christian fundamentalism in the United States, possibly including its relationship to the Christian right, but also including its origins.

My wife is reading Rubicon which retells the "myth" of the Cumaean Sibyl. Is there any evidence that her prophecies existed, and is there any evidence of what was said? Rubicon quotes from the prophecies - from where did the author obtain that text?

Slaves were a great capital asset class but could not be active consumers for industrial goods or borrowers from financial institutions. Wage earning labor could and did have money to spend and interact with financial markets. How important was it to the Northern financial/industrial elites that slavery end to free up a large capital asset and create more consumers for the expanding northern business community. Was this as important as the idea that slavery should end because it was "evil"?