In the TV Series "Rome", the soldier Titus Pullo is almost turned away from a brothel because he is a soldier, until the madame realizes he is escorting Octavius, a noble's son.

This brought up an interesting question. DUring this time period in Rome, that being the reign of Julius Caesar, did businesses frequently segregate themselves based on the "class" or "caste" of the clientele?

Would soldiers be prohibited from going to certain "upscale" businesses?

Would a noble be prohibited from going to certain "lower class" businesses?

I know that the word "nerd" carries a lot of pejorative baggage with it, but I mean basically people bearing these features:

• Great abstract intelligence combined with possibly not great social intelligence.

• Poor or difficult socialization, but enhanced interior life.

• Huge degree of knowledge about very specific things, many of them probably viewed by "society" as being not very important or actually totally irrelevant. e.g. knowing basically EVERYTHING about Ovid or Etruscan mosaics or something but not knowing how to talk to a girl properly or dress stylishly or whatever. Focus on ultimately inconsequential hobbies rather than social or economic advancement.

• Strong identification with an "in-group", friendship with other people so identified, disdain for out-group.

• Possibly physically weak, whether thin and unmuscular or very obese. Uninterested in gymnasia or other sorts of training.

• Living in the ancient equivalent of "the parents' basement", i.e. not moving out to form their own life and career and etc.

I'm sure that this question is revealing my ignorance about a lot of things, but that's alright by me. Anything I can learn about this is appreciated, even if it means I have been wrong.

Has such a lifestyle/personality type only been possible in the modern west? Or does it have a longer history?

I think we can all agree that the tv show is fantastic, albeit somewhat historically inaccurate. I just have several questions about the historical Ragnar, and his descendants.

1. Is there enough evidence to support that Ragnar was an actual historical figure? Or is/was he pretty much a semi-legendary character? Or is he an amalgamation of several historical figures that lived during the Viking age?

2. Do any of the sources make direct reference to Ragnar, and do they discuss his campaigns/raids in depth? As a warrior and commander, where does he rank among other Viking chieftains?

3. Odd question, and maybe this goes hand in hand with question number one, but was he of Danish or Norse descent?

4. We do know of his sons, or his supposed sons - those being Ubba, Halfdan, Björn Ironside, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, and Ivar the Boneless. Were they actual sons of the historical Ragnar? If not, why did they claim descent from him? Wasn't Ubba of Frisian descent, why would he claim descent from a Dane?

5. Of all the Loðbrók sons, who was the most successful commander?

Thanks

I'm reading Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval" and he says that for much of Vietnam's history, Hue was its "political and cultural center." Why, the, did the North Vietnamese not make it the capital after the war was over?

According to her diary it was 6 stone 12 pounds. I would like to know how many pounds were in a stone.

Despite the fact that China was Communist nation I've heard from a few historians that Mao actually had very little 'domestic policy.' It seems that at certain times, such as the Cultural Revolution, the 'revolution' was guided by forces other than the government, such as the Red Guards. How true then would it be to say that Mao was an anarchist?

"I've got eight slugs in me. One's lead, and the rest are bourbon. The drink packs a wallop and I pack a revolver."

Just was thinking this morning. Wondering if there were any specific cases, if there were a lot of soldiers doing this, or if they were not able to.

This question may be too broad, but if that can be answered it'd be nice. I'll try to narrow it down;

How did Adolphus Gustavus fight against the armies of Poland and Muscovy (later Russia)? By this I don't mean their levies or mercenaries, but rather their cavalry traditions. Both nations are particularly known for creating the light cavalry, which was later adopted by the West, but how did Gustavus combat the professional cavalry?

I recall reading that Gustavus created the modern dragoon, and made them into general workhorses (engineers and sappers), how did this work? Were they simply mounted engineers who knew how to use a gun?

Was the combined arms approach of his armies. How did he come to have his cavalry function as artillerymen, artillerymen as infantry, etc.? And how? I'd imagine this exponentially increased the cost of his army, and the time it'd take to recruit and move them.

And finally, what were tactics that are often attributed to him? I know that he believed "Raitar" should dispel a volley at close range before a charge, but didn't "Cuirassiers" already do this? So why is it attributed to him, was he simply the first to make it the norm?

Where they moved to Palestinian grounds? And i also wanted to know if there are numbers on how many jews lived in this region before the IWW or somewhere close to it. I am also willing the read some texts or books to this topic, so feel free to send me some good reads if you know some.

I'm really not an expert on this, but its my understanding the first wave of feminists were very tightly connected with the temperance movement, and that the two amendments, prohibition and women's suffrage were passed within a year of each other. Obviously suffrage was a no brainier, but weren't there other worthwhile causes to replace temperance. Was there a debate in the movement about different goals? I don't want to move into historical what if territory, but it seems like if these movements had the clout to pass two amendments we would be better off now if they had found a different cause, like universal healthcare for instance.

I watched Braveheart last night for the first time since the 90's, and I was hoping someone could shed some light on who William Wallace actually was, versus how he's depicted/remembered today.

I know in a lot of earlier wars people with no military experience were given officer commissions above the O1 rank. I was wondering if this ever happened in the bulk up of the military in the run up to WW1 or WW2 in order to fill out some of the middling officer ranks.

So my Grandfather was a Romanian man who spoke 7 different languages. I know that he fought or was used by the Germans during the Second World War. He never spoke about his past to my father and I was wondering if anyone could tell me what he might have been put through or might have done.

Thanks for any information!

I'm somewhat of a beginner of a student of ancient Rome but I've realized in my studies that I can't seem to find a general consensus on the way history views Caesar. Depending on who you talk to he was a vicious tyrant who deserved what he got and that his assassins were hero's. Others, however, praise all he did and believe him to be one of the greatest people to have come out of Rome and those who assassinated him were cold blooded murderers.

So, how do you people see it?

It's never made any sense to me. Aren't cows and lamb just as "filthy"? Furthermore, it takes a lot of work to domesticate and maintain an animal(s), so why are pigs around today and sold if they are so "bad"? Who maintained the species and why? Why do they have a negative stigma?