Recently watched HBO's Rome and I'm intrigued in all of this. I have a few questions regarding the First Triumvirate and the events that eventually led to Caesar declaring himself as the Dictator of Rome.

1. In the show, it only focused on the tension between Caesar and Pompey with little to no mention of Crassus. How important was Crassus? What was his role in the "agreement" between the three? Was he ever as "big" as Caesar and Pompey? What was his relationship with Caesar like vs his relationship with Pompey? Why did he invade Parthia(?) and what were the consequences of that invasion?

2. I know that Caesar and Pompey eventually came to blow against one another but I want to know in details why did they decided to fight each other in the end. Was the Republic backing of Pompey is only reason that he came to blow vs Caesar? What were the events that led to tension between the two? Did this tension cause any harm to the Republic?

3. Although the three men ruled "unofficially", how did the Romans feel about the First Triumvirate? Was the Romans more patriotic towards the Republic? Or were they largely following their leaders (Caesar, Pompey and Crassus)?

4. Why was it that Caesar became so popular with the people? What did he do to gain that popularity? Did the Republic view it as a threat? Did Caesar "utilize or manipulate" the popularity to gain more control over time? Did Caesar have any important "influence" in the Republic or was he viewed as "enemy of the state"?

5. When Caesar finally defeated Pompey, was it obvious that he would march to Rome and declare himself a Dictator? Was there any important events inbetween the final victory vs Pompey and the march to Rome? How did the people feel (what was their morale) when Caesar became the Dictator?

I know that it's a long post and there are like 249 questions in there, but I don't want to make too many posts asking questions about pretty much the "same topic". Ultimately, I want to know how did the unofficial agreement between the so-called First Triumvirate and what important events led to the "temporary" fall of the Republic with Caesar rose to power as the dictator.

*If you have any good sources, please include them in your posts because I'd like to read more about it.

Title says it all. In cultures with no metalworking, where stone and wood and cloth/leather were the only materials to make weapons with, was wood ever used to make body armour? Seems to me that having a plank of wood plastered to your chest could easily be enough to stop a blow from a stone axe or club, much more so than, say, hide or leather. And while it might not be enough to stop it, it sure would take some of the "Oomph" out of any arrow that would hit you.

I have never heard of any cultures that did this, though, so my question also includes why not?

Thank you in advance for any and all replies :)

I was thinking about the tanks that where used in the start and from all i understood the Russian tanks that where in use in the start of the where ( mainly the t-26) where better then the German tanks (mainly pz2) so why did the Germans succeed in operation Barbarossa even without tank superiority? and if i am wrong about the tanks please correct and enrich me because i would like to know more about them

I apologize if this is an odd question. A prof of mine made an off the cuff remark about Byzantine focus on charity led to an economic decline. It's not exactly his field, but I was wondering if askhistorians could expand on it if it is true!

I'm taking a trip to Rome (with stops to Vesuvius, Greece, Turkey along the way), and was wondering what reading would give me the most efficient way to learn about what I'm going to see.

I'd like to be able to feel the history when I walk around Rome/Greece/Turkey, if that makes any sense, and I don't want to spend time reading a book I randomly picked that ends up not being quite relevant.

Following the conquest of a region/state/etc, what became of the pigs following the subsequent conversion of Islam in the preceding years? Were they slaughtered en masse? Slowly bred out due to lack of demand? Did these newly converted Muslims continue to consume pork?

I've got a lot of general curiosity about the scope of duties and the range of experiences among motorcycle couriers in the war. How did one end up doing that? How widespread was their use over the war? Was it ever or often dangerous? If there are any good sources on this (or sources that at least touch upon it), I'd love to see them! :)

Good evening everybody, from what I understand sailships like clippers can not effectively manouver against the wind unlike smaller sailing boats. So how could the tea Clippers of the East India Company quickly and efficiently move between China and Great Britain?

Whenever I see a documentary about the Sovjet Union, it always describe the suffering of the people. People was supressed, poor, starving ect. ect. But if so many people lived under the communism, somebody must have thought it was a good way to live. Was nobody genuine happy about living under the communism, without being brain washed by propaganda?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were some cities - like Prague - that American armies could have beaten the Soviets to. So, why didn't they?

So, TIL many of the food which is a major part in modern cuisine came over from the new world.
What was old world diet pre colombian exchange?

Apparently, some people think that the Jews killed Jesus, but didn't the Romans convict him and then crucify him?

After reading a few biographies of Stalin and watching the very excellent BBC documentary "Stalin: Inside the Terror", I have been thinking a great deal about the unique nature of his rule. The constant terror he employed both on Russian society at large and the Communist elite, never allowed for a permanent ruling class or institutions to develop. Almost all of his close associates became victims of political purges and the people surrounding him at any given time were always part of a transient group, in constant fear for their lives. The old Bolsheviks were almost all executed by the end of the 30's, including men like Nikolai Bukharin who helped him to power. Much of Stalin's own extended family was killed off or imprisoned including the relatives of both of his wives. Even the leaders of his secret police and the Gulag system became victims of the purges.There was was little of the nepotism and vertical patronage that characterizes most authoritarian regimes, even Hitler was loyal to his cronies and those who had been with him since the early days of Nazism. He also allied himself with industrialists and the old Prussian elites in the Wermarcht, giving both groups many tangible benefits. In contrast there never seemed to be a solid base for Stalin’s power, instead there was just constant paranoid terror and upheaval. Stalin himself was the only constant and became more than any other dictator the absolute and unchallenged embodiment of the state. How did Stalin maintain such absolute control over the USSR when even total loyalty to him was never rewarded in the long term?

More precisely how did it survive the inquisition for example? As I understand this should have been considered with craft or pagan.

I've recently read alot about how India was ruled, but I can't seem to make a picture in my head about these:

How was Britain able to colonize India?

Why were Britain able to colonize India?

My problem was because of the amount of answers I found that had alot of differences.

Thx for the replies :)

Edit: I am hoping for some summaries or atleast helpful sites.

There has probably been a language gap, right? Or was it common back then to be bilingual (similarly to today) simply because one's life had greater potential from knowing the language of those living so closely.

Were marriages between French and German locals common?

Was there some sort of animosity between them or were they on friendly terms?

Over in TIL, this post has about 3,700: TIL that Claudius was the only one of the first 15 Roman emperors not to take a male lover. Others considered him strange for only being attracted to women. Is this true? I can't believe that Romans found him strange because he was only attracted to women; surely many other men were attracted to women only, right?