Two questions in one here - really, I'm interested in finding out why an empire with a nominal army size of over half a million men (taking into account both parts of the empire in the 4th century AD) would want to take the strategic risk of hiring tens of thousands of soldiers often sharing alternate leadership structures and loyalties (IE Alaric's forces) - did contemporaries see it as a risk or merely another standard aspect of Roman military policy?

More specifically where did the Ottoman version originate and and why did they adopt it?

This question has been bugging me for a while, historically speaking, How many times did a single person, or two, go on a killing spree back in the day when swords were popular but guns were not, just like how a deranged person goes on a killing spree today with a gun.

I'm an IT major and I chose one elective about Age of Discovery.

We went through all the major explorers: Dias, Columbus, da Gama, Magellan, Cortes, Pizarro, Cook, Livingstone and explorers of China/India.

I must write an essay about one explorer. I already know that my lecturer is flooded with work about Magellan and Columbus. Do you have anything on your mind what I can write about? Essay should 4-5 pages long, so sources shouldn't be very hard to find.

Thank you! :)

I have read that most of the enmity between Ireland and the rest of Britain (especially the English) comes from the creation of the Anglican Church and Ireland's rejection of it. Is this true? What were the relations and attitudes before the split?

Back hundreds of years ago when everything was spread by word of mouth and newspaper, how educated was the average person about the happenings of the time? Would the typical American of the time have known about the French revolution, or have even seen a map of Europe, for example?

I'm vaguely familiar with the outline of the conspiracy: a group of American politicians, military officers, etc., possibly led by influential founding father Aaron Burr, planned to launch an invasion of (here's where things get fuzzy for me) the area comprising the Louisiana Purchase? And also parts of New Spain, i.e. Texas and Northwestern Mexico.

What piqued my interest, though, was reading about the history of expulsions of serving Congressmen from the US Congress. A Senator John Smith of Ohio was, apparently, accused of supporting the conspiracy, but was ultimately exonerated or not expelled. This made me wonder what the scope of the so-called Burr Conspiracy was.

How deeply was Burr himself involved? What did the conspirators, if they successfully gained control of the Western lands, intend to do with them? Simply annex them to the United States, or were there more independently-minded goals for the new additions? Were any substantial steps made towards carrying out the expedition or invasion? To sum up, what exactly was the scope of the conspiracy, and how close was it to success, if any substantial steps were made at all?

To expand the question, how common is it for famous personages to view places or things that (other) people have named for them?

Was there any particular reason as to why did this happen? I assume they were great sailors because of their norse heritage, but even then, it seems like a very far away place to go, surely there must have been closer places for them to conquer and settle.

As always, suggestions on books on the subject are appreciated

In case it's not clear, I have no problem with the black actor/actress who are playing in the show, but I'm curious about how historically accurate it is. One role (Eponine) is a girl raised in the slums, and the other (Enjolras) is an influential student.

Or was it always threat of the sword that kept the peasants generally in line?

(Ideally, somewhere in north-west Europe, since that's what I'd identify with most strongly)

edit: The answers here have been far more interesting and well beyond what I expected. Thanks, everyone who replied!

I'm wondering how big towns or cities got in native North America, I know the Aztecs had some big ones (how big?), but what of the Natives we think of as only living in roaming packs? Any big Iroquois, Sioux, etc cities?

Edit: Around 18th and 19th centuries.

I'm hoping someone can help me impress my boss. He randomly asked if I could find the Latin translation and source of the phrase "To think about for a long time." He suggested maybe Cassius Dio or Gerundes (sp?). He was not 100% sure of himself either. The closest I could find is Cato's On Agriculture (diu cogitare). I took Latin in HS but my job is in no way related to that. Any help is appreciated. Thank you!

According to Edward Gibbon, 180 AD is where he draws the end of the so-called Pax Romana when the last of the Five Good Emperors, Marcus Aurelius, dies and is succeeded by his incompetent son Commodus. How would the social structure of the Romans look like, did their economy thrive, or was it stagnant/in decline? Did the succession by Commodus directly affect those affairs, or will the consequences of Commodus' bad rule be felt later on? If you're able to, please provide some good sources as well.

Thanks in advance!

I've began Richard Evans Third Reich trilogy, I'm still near the beginning (early 100s) but I was kinda surprised at the how much support the Social Democrats had in 1914 and early 1920s.

Was there every any threat to an actual communist or socialist revolution occurring in Germany similiar to what was happening in Russia?

I read the more moderates and right began using paramilitarism such as the Free Corps to put down any uprising, such as the uprising in Rohr, but I'm just curious was a revolution or movement ever close to overthrowing the government?

I am curious to know how former presidents made structural or cosmetics changes to the White House. Did modern presidents take into account the historic nature of the building or are they allowed to make significant changes? Would something like changing the Red Room into an arcade (not that they would) be alright?