Love marriages were always a thing in western society, but only when a lot of property wasn't on the line. Aristocrats continued the arranged marriage scheme, possibly even today, because of the economic and political concerns, as well as classism, that marriage and offspring create. Other societies that rely on arranged marriage almost always have a very strong class consciousness and a view of the family as the primary social organization; religious communities also tend to have matchmakers and such, Anabaptists and Jews come to mind, in order to keep the community going. You saw a greater acceptance of love marriages with the transition to a money based economy as property and real estate became less important and the position of women changed. Urbanism also increased the trend as children and wives became relegated to being biological toys and showpieces rather than equal partners in the family franchise.

I'm sure they are correct, but how do you even realize that tiny triangle rock is even an arrowhead?

While I can't name any particular ones, as more things are translated and spread the mythology of Siberia, Central Asia, and the Native Americans are being discovered. I would start there if you are interested in new myths.

Your talking about "hydraulic despotism". It might be real, but we can't know for sure. Basically, the despot oversees the water supply for irrigation and, due to the nature of the enterprise, is given full power over it and the society that relies on it. You can see it in other places as well with other resources. Thomas Friedman says the same thing is going on with petroleum, as nations that base their economy on oil almost all have dictatorships.

The reality is that the Hellenic democracies evolved out of despotism, as did Roman republicanism. Urbanism probably had more to do with democratizing Greece and Rome than environment. All the destabilizing able people living in a city rather than on their own lands created a requirement that they all have a chance to exercise power.

IDK, medieval history seems to be mostly about the king fighting with his vassals, and then when the king dies, vassals fighting with the princes.

In Persian and Turkish history, there always seems to be a period when one brother kills all the others and then becomes king and has to go and put down all the revolts that spring up.

So I would say mostly through superior violence is how the hereditary monarch maintains their power.

They did, the major agonists in the scenario all rose to the position to be possible emperor during these conflicts with Persia, gaul, etc. Caesar ended any possibility of revolt in gaul by pacifying them with arms, winning their loyalty citizenship. Crassus was killed in Persia, but IIRC, Pompey went and fixed their wagon.

Not really, when something is found that contradicts the record they weigh the evidence (it almost always turns out to be sloppy site work or just fraud) and withhold judgement on that artifact. One potsherd against thousands and all of that.

Greek fire was figured out, however we don't have any Byzantine recipes for it. We do have the versions used at the time by other armies, and it's probably the same thing. Without the Byzantine recipe we will never know for certain what precise ingredients were used.

Alexander II would have been the talk of the age if he didn't have to share it with Napoleon.

Frederick the Great had several of these. I would also say the Russians pushing Napoleon back to France.

Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and probably Harun alRashid for a start.

The city of Rome was still administered by the few families that consistently produced emperors like the Julii until the Renaissance. Many Provencal nobles would try to trace their lineage to notable Romans in an effort to create legitimacy.

Don't underestimate the efforts of Muslim traders. This is how Islam spread to most places. If you look at a map of the Muslim world, it is far wider than any of the military conquests. In fact India, where Islam had it's most successful militarism, is not considered part of the Muslim world. Regardless, the most populous Muslim nation was converted through trade and culture. So was most of West Africa. The Muslim traders even worked on the nations that became the caliphate. Trade conquered the Turks as well.

Gotcha, now I'm going down the rabbit hole on this lol

Circumcision in America got it's big boost from WWII when the armed forces were concerned about what might develop under the foreskin in the tropical conditions of the South Pacific. Before then it was generally something for Jews.

Iron is not necessarily better than bronze, it's definitely easier to obtain, but bronze had many advantages to iron such as it's non-corrosive traits that made it necessary for sea faring cultures.

That being said, throughout the world iron had it's users as far back as 3000 BCE, and as we see in the near east, even further back.

Communication wasn't advanced enough to create that level of mass hysteria. That's why the Beatles, and Elvis, are so monumental, they were the first to really be promoted and marketed the way they were. Other groups at the time could have been the Beatles, they just happened to be in the right place and time, but any number of pop acts were also getting the push.

IIRC the Roman calendar before Julian hardly lived up to it's name. It was confusing at best.

How do you mean? Napoleon was seen as a dangerous and destabilizing influence that was causing a lot of trouble for Britain through his blockade, there were major geopolitical reasons to work at removing him from power, jealousy wasn't on the list.

Would actively deciding what to save become something that ends up biasing future historical exploration to the point that it makes the enterprise dubious? The sites we have for study are completely random, and that definitely biases our view of the past. Think about the generations of people in the deccan who built and lived with perishable material that have no record beyond the impact they had on people who built with stone, or how we pay so much attention to a hundred year period of Roman history but can't figure out where Valerian was at certain crucial engagements because of the sources available. Would the process of saving sites not create a similar issue in the future?

Sometimes a society's culture is developed in relation to it's competitors. For example the USA adopted it's motto and several patriotic rituals in response to the Soviet Union. Is there an example of this with Rome in regards to the Parthians/Persians? Was there anything of note that developed in Rome based on the challenges Parthia presented beyond military strategy? I don't mean "popular in Persia and it spread", but like "In god we trust" being stamped on money as a direct response to the perceived stance of the competition?

The "road". Passes, rivers, low plains, and anywhere else that people find easier to traverse are where most towns developed. These pathways would intersect and if there was enough people passing through to support full-time occupation, a town would develop.

In the USA it was considered pretty nutty before the late 70s or 80s to run for exercise or fun unless it was for a particular sport. Jogging was getting a start in the late 60s, but the long distance for no reason was frowned upon by orthopedists.

Lots of churches had paintings and sculptures.

Cardinal Richelieu or Axel Oxenstierna? I would look for people who were able to see moves in advance and design a plan. Along this theme would be some of the Native American leaders who were able to keep their people afloat despite the advantages colonizers had, when one thinks about how few Iroquois there were, yet how long they resisted colonial powers, that has to be some higher level strategy. Certain African leaders would also be nominees as well.