My understanding is that Augustus came to power through the facade of restoring the Republic, however he never created a true position of emperor, rather he just controlled everything that went through the senate by the senate being loyal to him. Assuming my understanding is correct (and please correct me if it is not), how did future emperors maintain power if the senate was still the supreme office?

I was reading about Epicurus and his diet of water, olives, and bread. I'm curious as to the type of bread. Was it like a pita bread? A more hearty and crusty bread? Any kind of modern day equivalents? Also how were the olives he would been eating? Comparable to olives of today?

Seems like and odd choice to build it in a desert.

In light of the recently accelerated rise of ISIS and Islamic fundamentalism, I was wondering how that part of the world (and the broader Muslim community) was different when the Soviet Union was still a super power. Were there more or less instances of religiously-motivated terror attacks? Did Muslims and citizens in Arab countries have preferences toward the US or USSR? How did the collapse affect the trajectory of history?

(thanks historians -- your services are invaluable to our democracy)

I'm not sure how trustworthy the Wikipedia article is, and I'm very curious about their relationship both professional and personal.

First of all: This is not actually a question about history or the method in historical sciences. Therefore I humbly ask the mods not to delete it and give it a chance.

The knowledge of our own history is important to us. Since I have studied History, publications for everyone interested in History have greatly increased. Here in Germany nearly everyday there is a documentary about history to watch, several magazines are published, books are on the non-fiction bestseller lists etc. I believe in most of the other "western" cultures this is similar.

How is the study of History perceived in cultures like the Chinese, Korean or Japanese? Besides the stereotype that we have of the eastern civilization as being "very traditional societies", is there an effort outside of academical circles to explore the own history as a nation or people? What kind of status does History education in schools and universities have?

edit: typos

It seems like they were pretty ubiquitous in the 50s/60s, but now they are virtually non existent. What caused the decline?

I'm not asking why did they not have a king instead, but rather why the choice of words.

Was it more popular? Was it because it wasn't regal and powerful sounding? Did that mean the title had a certain connotation? Or did they just go for literal sense of someone presiding?

How comes new religious orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans etc. became prominent parts of Medieval religious society whereas popular 'heretical' movements such as the Waldenses, Humiliati, Cathars etc. were labelled as thus and condemned?

Even amongst the 'official' new religious orders there were differing beliefs, what made some differing beliefs okay and others 'heretical'?

How long was training, what did they learn and how did it change as the Allies started advancing on Germany.

I would like to know more about training in WWII, but if you know about WWI that would be great also.

As contemporaries they grew to national prominence at the same time, I think they were both involved as young officers in the Siege of Toulon 1793.

Upon capturing a french convoy in 1796, Nelson found a chest of books intended for Napoleon (artillery general at that time) sent to improve Napoleon's military history. Nelson commented: “If Bonaparte is ignorant[,] the Directory it would appear wish to instruct him. I pray God he may remain ignorant.”

Is this evidence of an ongoing awareness by Nelson of Napoleon's potential? Or just a throwaway comment about wanting French officers to be uneducated in warfare? Did Napoleon make comments about Nelson in the same vein, during the 1790s?

I know the story about Napoleon having a bust of Nelson, but I'm interested to know how their awareness of each other grew earlier on.

I imagine it would be difficult to enforce demands on the British Empire due to the poor performance of German colonial forces.

Would Egypt be ceded to the Ottoman Empire? What about the balkans, would the entire region be partitioned between Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria?

It is titled: Roman Empire The author is: Nigel Rodgers Consultant: Dr. Hazel Dodge FSA

Is this a good book to get the basics of the Roman Empire down?

So campaign season is mentioned throughout pretty much everything I am reading about Roman warfare. From what I can tell the season starts in March and ends sometime in the Fall.

There are also mentions of armies ceasing hostilities and setting up camp for the winter, and resuming fighting come Spring. Also it seems that crossing certain terrain was impossible over the winter.

A lot of the reasoning for campaign season seems to be related to climate. What I am wondering now though: Winter in Southern Italy (today) might not be particularly pleasant, but it seems to be not much worse for moving armies and warfare than brutal summer heat - I would imagine in some years Winter was even more tolerable. Was climate different say 2500 years ago? Do the sources from campaigns in early Republican times make mention about the actual conditions "off-season"?

I understand that at some point the season was a religious tradition as much as a practical measure. I guess my question is, do we have an idea whether climate was different to today when that tradition was formed?

Instead of nothing, rocks, etc.? Was it to tell them to work? If so, any reason why he didn't give them things like bricks? Also, when and where did this originate?

I have always seen the pictures of 'colored only' facilities and was wondering how everyone not from the european/african roots binary fit in this system.