During the reign of Augustus, did Roman citizens in Rome in either the Patrician or Plebeian classes begin to self-identify as politically belonging to an integrated Empire, or did the notion of Rome as a city-state that simply happened to have foreign colonies (provinces) governed by Romans persist?

Furthermore, what kind of political identity did Roman citizens living in the provinces have during the Principate when compared to citizens living in Rome itself?

Finally, if during the Principate, Roman citizens retained the political notion of Rome as a polis, simply one with a plethora of ‘foreign’ colonies and dependencies; why was the notion of a united “Italia” so strong?

I know a majority of the German people admired Hitler and beleived he could save Germany but to what extent did Hitler use force, violence and/or intimidation to help himself rise to power? (most specifically on the German people)

The Lincoln assassination is pretty well-publicized with the Civil War backdrop, but the Garfield and McKinley situations seem to be considered basic (for lack of a better word) political attacks by mentally unstable men (Guiteau and Czolgosz).

-Did any of these three tragedies draw any sort of doubt or accusation of "alternate" events, such as the Grassy Knoll or Magic Bullet? If so, was it from civilians, politicians, both?

-Alternately, did any of the "natural deaths" of presidents in office (W.H. Harrison, Z. Taylor, etc.) spark any substantial suspicion of foul play?

Apologies in advance if I still mucked up any of the rules/popular questions.

Cross post from /r/AskSocialScience because I could not decide which to post in, and figured the additional perspective would be nice.

I have always somewhat respected him as a President. He played a good roll in the space program and civil rights, but is often blamed for the Vietnam War, which I feel he did not want, nor could stop. What is your opinion on him as a President, and how does history remember him?

Also, are there any suggested reading on him you guys could offer?

I'm delving deep into the history of the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary wars lately. I just finished David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, for instance. Whenever I read about the cavalry, though, it always describes charge and counter-charge.

I do know from further research, though, that French cavalry (and that of other nations) were at least armed with pistols and usually a carbine or musketoon. My question is, how would you use that, or any firearm, during a charge/a pitched battle? Was it more suited for skirmishing or dismounted combat? I can't see it being a lot of use in the hell-for-leather charges at Eylau or Waterloo; maybe I'm reading this wrong?

During the period of hostilities from the 1950's until 1975, there was never a US ground attack into North Vietnam presumably due to escalation and other strategic objectives. The South Vietnamese leadership, in its various stages, often operated separately from American interests despite its dependence.

Did the South Vietnamese government or the ARVN invade or attempt to invade North Vietnam whether in opposition to or by secret sanction of American interests?

In the beginning of "Birth of Biopolitics", Foucault asserts that 17th century states operating under the logic of "Raison d'etat" intentionally avoided attempting to dominate other states to establish imperial control over all of Europe. I had always been under the impression that the lack of hegemony by one state in Europe during this time was more a result of Britain intentionally acting as a balancer in wars to prevent an overwhelming victory on either side.

In depictions, recreations and in general displays of the Roman armour, it usually doesn't cover the arms very well. I'm curious as to why this was chosen? Obviously, covering it with plate would increase the cost of armour quite a bit to each soldier. But what about covering it up with fabric, at least that would be helpful against cold and as a very, very light protection against common hazards that clothing prevents. In medieval times, there wasn't much sleevelss armour, it seems. Am I completely wrong?

TL;DR: Why did the Romans', and so much other armour, go sleeveless?

Why segregate them? I thought the U.S. would be all for "equality for all", in light of the whole racial segregation thing in the U.S.

Interesting to see both sides here, if possible.

In the 1st and 2nd centuries BC there are some examples of ideologically motivated politics, such as the Gracchi brothers or Caesar's assassins.

But what about personal rivalries between two demagogues, like Anthony versus Octavian? Unless I'm mistaken neither was fighting to restore the Republic; both men seem to have sought the same amount of power for themselves. Did these men have genuine political disagreements on any issues, or were they simply fighting out of greed for power?

And how about the many power struggles during the Empire, such as the Year of the Five Emperors? Were those solely about self-interested power?

Obviously the stirrup was a big deal. What did Western European cavalry (specifically the elite heavy cavalry) look like before Mongol influence and how did that change?

How would a Dane talk with a Fleming or an Englishman with an Italian and so forth?

If not, at which point did the war first become impossible to win?