I would prefer the video to hover around the 2 minute mark, maybe 3. I need this to show my middle ages class a representation of the black death.

Currently I'm in the midst of reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus, and I'm a bit confused about the breakdown of the Roman political system. What I took from it was that the senate was primarily an advisory body, magistrates wielded the most power but for a limited amount of time, and voting assemblies well, voted. Could someone give me an overview of the different magistrate positions, how they were selected, how many of each, and what they did, as well as the same for the voting assemblies? Also, how were senators selected? And while we are at it, how was it determined if one was a pleb or patrician, and how did this dictate how far they could rise up the ladder? Sorry for the mess but I feel like I'm not understanding it and I'd like some concrete knowledge, as my personal study always ends with me being a bit more confused.

I imagine there was a large industry behind the horse. Did the loss of jobs cause any turmoil? Is it compatible with transition from the industrial to today's information age?

It seems like in the Han-Xiongnu war, the Han were generally able to defeat the Xiongnu in a series of massive battles.

Was there anything about Xiongnu society that precluded their taking the traditional nomadic "Idanthyrsus strategy" against the Han invaders (avoid battle, poison wells, burn food stores, and keep distance until the invaders have to withdraw)? Did they have any major, immobile cities that were their vassals that they felt compelled to defend or anything? Did they have some notion of honor or chivalry that regarded withdrawal as disgraceful?

Or am I overestimating the frequency of pitched battles in the Han-Xiongnu war, and not taking into account how long the war was?

A friend and I are arguing, she claims Australia came up with 'mate' as a friendly colloquial term, I claim that England did, that it is derived from the word 'ship-mate', and that this term was shortened to 'mate' and subsequently used among sailors and pirates alike as they traveled across the globe during the Golden Age of Piracy or a similar time. Is either of us correct, or is the answer totally different?

Also how were they viewed by the public, and how did the law handle them?

That's probably not the best way to phrase this question, but basically I'm just wondering what happened to relations between England and France when William became king of England. Did William formally renounce his fealty to the French crown and claim the Duchy of Normandy as an English possession? Wiki makes it sound like when Philip II took possession of Normandy a century and a half later, he still considered the kings of England to be his vassals (a claim which they obviously rejected).

American History has always seemed to give me the impression (maybe I'm alone here) that after D-day the allies were always winning in a march toward Berlin. At the macro level, were there no setbacks? How much longer could the US economy have sustained all of the New Troops, Tanks, Bombers, Food, Ammo etc etc, had the progress been slower?

I've been reading Between Two Fires: Europe in the 1930's by David Clay Large, and in his chapter on the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, he repeatedly asserts that Ethiopias Amharic elite considered themselves "caucasian", thereby justifying the keeping of subsaharan slaves. Is this accurate?

I've heard some people (non-historians) say that the members of the societies that eventually made slavery illegal started caring more about human rights during those centuries. If so, why did that happen?

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a rhetorical question in favor of slavery. Also, I understand that while slavery is illegal in many places, it (and similar practices) is still done and is still an issue today.

It's my understanding that plate and chain armor weren't really contemporaries. Sure, chain was used to protect the joints in the plate armor, but I don't believe it was used for full suits anymore at that point.

What would the relative costs of the two armor types be? I know chain was very labor intensive to make, but would it be more expensive than plate?

I would assume it was tied to the rise of the automobile, but why this particular form of recreation? How did it evolve from simple carnivals which traveled around via rail, to a fixed location that people came to visit? What gave rise to the pairing of carnival games and food stands with massive roller coasters and themed characters from movies and cartoons?

A brief history type book.

Just been reading All Quiet on the Western Front and I'm wondering if it accurately portrays a soldier returning to civilian life?

Since I'm an American in Europe, I've been wondering if the average European of the mid-1800s had at least some notion of the current events during the Civil War. I know there was a telegraph link from North America to Britain at the time. Would it have been important news for Europeans? (i.e. would a business owner be concerned about losing shipments of something produced in the USA?)

Today the world is so interconnected that if a war breaks out anywhere, everyone will be following it intensely. But I know they had the technology to make relatively up-to-date news from another continent possible back then.

Which specific institutions were known for storing and preserving classical works? What were their methods?

A bit of context, I've been told by some people in the church that the account of Moses striking the rock to bring forth water was common practice for shepherds back in the day (pools of water that were trapped under a layer of thin sandstone or something like that), and it was likely a trick Moses learned from his days as a Shepherd.

Is that accurate, or is it a "historical lore" that just crops up sometimes when people try to explain things?