I imagine this depends on a lot of things, like how skilled the Romans were at cartography, whether this subject was included in the education of commoners or patricians, whether it would have been considered worthwhile knowledge, etc.

Would the average Roman have a sense of what the empire looked like on a map? Would they know of Italy's distinctive shape, or the outline of the Mediterranean, or of far off lands like the British Isles?

Or was this knowledge pretty much common only to military figures or administrators of the empire who would have had a lot of immediate use for it? Also, how common were maps in general? Have we uncovered any maps from the time period?

So, much like the reports made by Generals and commanders in the 1700's and 1800's saying things like "this unit moved here"..."Attack was repelled" etc. Are there any known entries like this from the Roman era? Well understood and translated ones?

I'm looking for information about Floyd Dominy, the Bureau of Reclamations and the history of water and water rights in the American West in general.

Thanks!

I also have read that Japan was in a stalemate in China at the time.

I don't mean this question to sound condescending like what were they thinking. Nor do I mean to seem ignorance because hidesight is of course 20 20 but it seems like they fought hard but we're simply outnumbered and eventually were behind in technology as well. We're they unaware of that at the time?

A big controversy is obviously made of the 3/5 compromise, since it gave Southern states representation for people who couldn't ever vote in the first place. But since white women were free people, did they also count as part of this calculation? And if so, did it generate a similar controversy since women could not vote until the 20th century?

Given the difficulty and lengthy process of reloading a gunpowder firearm, it would seem like having proficiency in traditional fighting techniques would remain a crucial part of military training.

Did the rise of gunpowder shift the traditional battle formation so drastically that men were no longer expected to engage in hand-to-hand combat? What about when armies campaigned in regions against opposition which had not acquired gunpowder weaponry?

In Short: How much training time was put toward operating a firearm?

I've been listening to the history of Rome podcast, and I'm finally learning about how Julius Caesar was really a total dictator over the people. So why when people hear the name of Julius Caesar today, at least in my case, I always connected the name with a great and benevolent consul who was murdered by his enemies. Now the latter is true, but not the former. So why is his name connected that way, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

During the People's Crusade for instance, were they just expected to walk or given free passage on boats by some armies? And if the former, what route did they take?

I have always wondered this. When we see figures for example that the average life span during the middle ages was 40 years, does this mean that the average adult only lived until 40. Or does this figure include the many infant deaths and therefore the average is brought down.

Also how is this calculated in the first place?

I'm curious especially about the New York Times not printing any papers from August to November of that year, the mock 'Not the New York Times,' and any recommended resources for further reading/research. Thanks!

The M60 was introduced in the early 60's, well before the major American buildup in Vietnam. Yet, instead of M60 tanks, inferior M48s were sent instead. Was the U.S. just sending its older second-stringer tanks to Vietnam and saving the M60's for a possible brawl in Europe with the Soviets and Warsaw Pact?

I saw this claim in the footnotes to one of the most respected Biblical translations, commenting on the creation story in the book of Genesis.

As mentioned, I'm especially interested in if we have records of anyone else who didn't quite make the connection (from any culture, or any time period).

From what I've seen it's not clear if it was purely voluntary or if media would be fined upon censorship code violations. If the latter, did it fall under the federal government's regulation of airwaves, or was it a broader-reaching censorship of all media? Was it controversial and/or constitutional?

Any viking experts here want to share their knowledge with me?