If you could give me a detailed account of her time as PM, what she did and why she is considered a bad Prime Minister.

Edit: I'm not sure I quite buy the arguement that people who love her don't talk about it out of fear of being ridiculed by people who hate her. That is not how public opinions work. If you admire some public figure like, lets say, Justin Bieber, you are more willing to defend that persons image when it comes under attack by haters. This is even more clear in political discussion. If you belive in an idea, you feel it as your responsibility as a voter and a voice to defend that idea so that it may become more widespread and eventually come into effect.

That being said, I have few follow up questions: what was the employment rate before and after her tenure, what effect did she have on the welfare system and did the gap between classes widen during her time?

I just finished reading Plutarch's biography of Ceasar and am puzzled as to how exactly his famous march on Rome worked. According to Plutarch, Ceasar marched on Rome with only 5,000 infantry and Pompey, upon hearing this, declared the city to be in a state of anarchy and fled the capital. I know that Plutarch isnt the best source (if only we had livy!) and that Pompey was being pulled from multiple sides and was unable to make a clear decision, but still, the facts puzzle me. Did Rome not have a wall around it at this time? Was there really no garrison or peace keeping force or hell, enough people with weapons to man the walls? Any additional light anyone could shed on this critical moment in Roman history would be greatly appreciated by me.

Did Scythian cannabis culture have any impact on the spread of hashish use in the Islamic world?

How did they use swords? Can we still use it now? Is it any good to us? Where did they learn sword fighting? Was food a problem? How did they cook those sousages and those stuff in a specular way? How do they become good at sword fights? What about deaths? Did they moun? In sieges, thousands of soldiers die but people kept living and see that as a normal thing? Has that changed today? I mean, if just one person dies from an accident, we all become sad. But hundreds die, they just talk about it as a normal thing.. What happened?

Thank you so so much. You could pick any of them or answer to all of them. It is up to you!

I'm wondering if poorer Jews were more likely to be "captured" by Nazis , and if wealthier Jews were by and large able to escape persecution. I know the assets of wealthy Jews were frozen after a point, but did many still possess the resources to flea? What was the proportion of European Jews from wealthy backgrounds that survived vs poor Jews?

I've recently rekindled my interest in European history and folklore and whilst reading about Hinzelmann the Kobold it got me thinking about early religious practices in medieval and prehistoric Europe. I know Vikings took part in regular human sacrifice and it's suggested that palaeolithic people did the same but I can't find many sources (mostly because I'm new to this). I'm aware of human sacrifice in South America and North Africa (Carthage), and it's gotten me morbidly curious.

To be clear I got the notion from American Gods, specifically the idea of a child being kept seperate, well loved and fed and eventually sacrificed to become a sort of child-god. I'd never heard of this before- is there any truth to it?

Any sources or resources would be greatly appreciated!

Reading about the Korean war. Since the British were fighting there, the Atlee government was privy to all communications between the Pentagon and the U.N. Commander in Korea (MacArthur). Unfortunately, there were at least three communist agents high up in the British Secret Intelligence Service (Philby, Maclean and Burgess) and it was likely that they were passing military secrets to the Soviets that ended up in North Korean hands. MacArthur and other commanders thought it was uncanny how the enemy knew in advance what they were going to do. However, the landings at Inchon were a complete surprise. Maybe it was only after Inchon that Soviet intelligence became interested/concerned enough to start looping in the North Koreans?

I've no formal training in history, so I'm curious to see what criteria are used to determine how a military leader is viewed in the present.

Are things like strategic vs tactics vs logistics matter in terms of evaluating a leader? Are technological and numerical factors important as well in elevating or diminishing how much impact a person made on the success or failure of battles/campaigns?

For example, I consider Gaius Marius one of the best and more influential of Roman Generals due to his reforms of the Legions and events following his death and defeat of the Marians on the late Republican period. But what exactly classifies a "Great General"? Crassus never received this glory inspite of his successes in Sulla's campaign against the Marians, and it's pretty evident how that messed with his head.

To specify the timeline, from the founding of the Roman Republic around 500 BCE to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE.

What level of accuracy were they able to produce? How far did their maps extend? How detailed were maps? What equipment did they use to map the world? How did their cartographic skills compare to other civilizations at the time?

What were Libraries originally for?

How has their role changed over time?

What was the motivation for governments to build libraries in towns/suburbs/municipalities?

How much of a social benefit have libraries provided to civilization during the period of 1800-1994?

In Livy's "History of Rome" he recalls the events surrounding the abduction of the Sabine women in Rome, and says that the reason this was done was so that they could be married to Roman men, in a time where there was "absence of women". He goes so far to say that the great Roman Empire could fall after the current generation because of the lack of procreation going on.

Why??

I'm wondering if there is a definitive answer to this question. I was raised in the orthodox church and so I was always taught that Catholics split from the orthodox church and that it was the orthodox church which "retained the true faith and practices". Of course, once I grew up and left home...every catholic I met swore that it was the orthodox who did the splitting, and that it was the Catholics who retained the true faith and practices.

I don't understand why this question is so controversial. It seems by examining the practices of the church in the centuries before the great schism, it should be easy to tell which group deviated more and thus caused the split.

Edit:

I do realize that there are some newer Nationalist parties like Geert Wilder's Party and the Swedish Democrats who seem to be mildly pro-Israel, but they are newer parties and seem to be more anti-Muslim due to immigration than pro-Israel. Many of the older, more traditional conservative parties like Front National in France have roots in antisemitism. Then there are the other traditional right-wing parties like Jobbik and Golden Dawn which are very antisemitic.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the USA are incredibly pro-Israel. I've never seen a modern Republican in the US say anything supportive of Palestine. However, I've seen pictures in the 1960's of segregationists blaming Jews for integration, communism, and the Civil Rights Act. So what changed for them?

Also, does this hatred towards them account for their increased activity in organised crime?

Did people of that era understand that it was dangerous to be a human lightning rod during a storm?