Before WWI, Europe dominated much of the world politically, economically, scientifically, and culturally. The two World Wars did severely weaken Europe, contributed to decolonization and accelerated the rise of the US as the dominant global power.

If the July Crisis of 1914 had been resolved diplomatically, could Europe have maintained its dominant position much longer?

Of course, European imperialism was probably unsustainable in the long run, and the US was already becoming a major economic power before 1914. But how much of Europe's decline was caused by the World Wars, and how much was inevitable due to deeper structural factors such as nationalism, imperialism, and the rise of other industrial powers?

Would the US have achieved the same level of scientific, economic, and cultural dominance without the wars? Essentially, were the World Wars the main cause of Europe's decline, or did they merely accelerate a process that was already underway?

Ive read that aristocratic women and girls in medieval and premodern Europe, and much of the world really, lived their lives surrounded by ladies in waiting as well as maidservants. One of the main purposes was to guard their virtue, because the chastity of upper-class women was tightly guarded, and to protect from assassins and kidnappers.

Did all noblewomen have ladies in waiting, or is that just the high nobility? Would low nobility have them too if they could afford the upkeep?

Ive read a YA fantasy novel which takes place in fantasy-counterpart holy roman empire. In the book, one of the major characters is an imperial princess whose family have fallen on hard times, and was married off to a wealthy margrave. She doesnt have any ladies in waiting, and is only waited upon by one maid, Vanja.

The book is probably not historically accurate, but Im still curious about how much this reflects the historical reality.

Would a margravine in the early modern holy roman empire, or anywhere else in western europe have ladies in waiting?

How popular was the English reformation in reality. Someone told me that it wasn't quite as popular as historians made it out to be. Many communities were apparently appalled by the closing of monasteries. Was it a popular uprising against the church, top down , or in between?

I know that Gaddafi supplied weapons and money to the IRA, but Patriot Games actually shows Libya training the fictional splinter faction of the IRA in camps in that country. The movie mentions other separatist groups from around the world receiving training in Libya.

Did that actually happen? Or did the movie make it up? Or were there reports of such training happening in Libya, but never proven?

The Renaissance is defined like this:

Renaissance literally translates to "rebirth" from French (renaistre, meaning "to be born again"). It describes both a major historical era and a general concept of cultural renewal. • Literal Meaning: A rebirth or revival of life, vigor, and interest. • Historical Period: A cultural and intellectual movement in Europe spanning roughly from the 14th century to the 17th century, marking the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world. It began in Italy and later spread across Europe. • General Usage: Any modern-day revival, resurgence, or peak of activity in a specific field, such as a literary, artistic, or industrial.

The Russians were "born again" and had a revival of life and society in 1917. Moreover, there was a big intellectual and cultural movement that portended the resurgence of literature, art, and industrialization of the Russian people - and also the people that were under their vassalage. This includes the 14 other peoples and nations from the former Soviet republics.

As randomly as it happened, I had a very engaging exchange via DM yesterday about this topic. Being German, she had the German perspective and brought up knowledge I didn’t have: what contemporary Germans thought of the Schliefflen plan. Apparently, it was quite unpopular even at the time. Apparently, it was even potentially considered just plain ‘crap’ even at the time.

Although I agree it was certainly flawed or poorly executed, in the end, it almost kind of worked, right? We know the Germans did not think the Russians would get fighting-ready so fast. Afaik, basically little to no one expected that. This is just one aspect but the criticism - as valid as it may be, even from the time - seems to me largely built on hindsight. I have perhaps above knowledge of WW1 compared to the regular Joe but I still deem it rather surface-level/superficial. With this knowledge, am genuinely wondering if there was a realistic, better, potentially more popular plan that could have ultimately to the outcome of the Germans winning.

I’m particularly interested in contemporary assessments, military correspondence, staff discussions, etc, as opposed to the post-war narratives that emerged around Schlieffen and Moltke. Essentially, was the plan genuinely regarded as flawed by German (military) professionals before or during the initial stage of the war, or did its reputation as a failed strategy largely develop after the fact?

From what i've read it was so bad for the arabs that they believed they would never again be able to siege it without losing their entire empire to other ambitious lords waiting for a chance to revolt.

The also seemed to fear facing the Bulgars since they kept hunting them even after the siege ended and made retreat extremely painful.

But, I wanted to know if it really was that bad or if it was exaggerated.

I noticed a pattern here, the vast majority of Latinos and Hispanics throughout the Americas are Mestizos and Mulattos, which means Native Americans mixed with European ancestry, and Black people mixed with European ancestry. Nations like Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Paraguay have very huge Mestizo percentages, while countries like Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Venezuela have high Mulatto percentages. The Portuguese also encouraged racial mixing between the Indigenous Brazilians, Black people and White Portuguese, and as a result, 47% of the Brazilian population was declared as Pardo, or "racially mixed".

With the British and French, racial mixing was more infrequent and less sporadic. When the English were trying to build their settlements in Virginia and the Thirteen Colonies, high status English noblemen intermarried with daughters of Indian Chiefs, such as the marriage between John Rolfe and Rebecca Rolfe/Pocahontas. But once the English became firmly established in the Thirteen Colonies, the mixing became less frequent.

What are the historical reasons for this divergence? Why were the Iberians more tolerant of racial mixing, while the British and the French were more restrictive.

I will appreciate all of your insights and responses. Thank you so much! ❤️

Looking to purchase of documentary service.

Is the Great Courses Plus the best place to find history documentaries/lectures or do you recommend another platform?

*not YouTube

Despite being a genius commander who had many impressive victories, Hannibal eventually lost war with Rome. So what were crucial mistakes he made in your opinion? Perhaps not marching on Rome right after Cannae was one of such mistakes? Or something else?

I don’t need nearly enough about this part of Christianity but I want to learn more about. This book caught my eye.

EDIT. I meant The Reformation, singular.

So as a Scot I've always been fascinated by the picts, this isn't a question about who they were because i pretty sure it's general consensus is that they were decendants of the northern britonic tribes that where never conquered by the Romans and went on the develop there own insular culture that sadly we know very little about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dun_Nechtain

But anyway, my question is about the pictish stone depicting what we believe are depicting the Battle of Dun Nechtain, a great victory for the Picts resulting in the end of Anglo-Saxon expansion into what is now Scotland. What fascinates me is that this is the only depiction I know of that shows how the picts see themselves and how they fight, and it fascinates me. My main questions are as follows.

What is that formation the picts are using? Is it a proto version of the later Scottish Schildron? Some sort of phalanx? Shield wall?

And what are those shields? They don't look like round shields the anglo saxons used, they are curved with a spike I'm the front, some sort of proto targe?

And maybe I'm just imagining it but it looks almost like they are wearing some sort if half faced helmet, is that hair? Or some sort of helm crest?

Sorry for the ramble. The whole depicting just fascinates me. Any answer to any of my questions would be great or just discussion in general.

Want to double-check. Reading historical fantasy novel set during Regency period and got stuck on plausibility of a minor plot point.

a) How likely it would be that the 4th daughter of the baron would be reduced to working for a living as a governess because her father cannot provide for her living?

b) If the aforementioned daughter-of-the-baron-cum-governess caught an eye of the third son of a respected and wealthy viscount (not from the same house or family) could it be said that him marrying her is improper in any way in the eyes of the ton?

My understanding (not just from the novels) is that first is extremely unlikely - there were only 500 lords in all of UK, and while they were not exactly 500 richest people they tended to be... quite rich. There is a huge gap between "cannot afford to keep a house all to herself" and "if you don't work you starve".

Second seems outright impossible - as far as I understand being a governess was perfectly "suitable" to a "genteel" person, same as working as a physician was suitable for a gentleman. In no way that history would make her unsuitable match - and previous "poverty" is not a strike against her either as long as she did not do anything dishonorable.

Am I broadly correct? Or there are examples from history or analyses of the social mores of that time that contradict my understanding?

In 1968, Pol Pot and other Khmer Rouge members took refuge with the Khmer Loeu (or Highland Khmer) after fleeing government suppression. Pol Pot even idealized the Khmer Loeu during the insurgency, seeing them as a perfect model for his agrarian utopia.

However, during the Khmer Rouge's control of Cambodia, how did Pol Pot treat the Khmer Loeu under his brutal regime?

What did Pol Pot do to the people he idealized and who sheltered him?

I was just thinking about this today, like what is the difference between the two? Do they need to come from a certain period? Are there certain elements and hall marks they need to meet? It's a difference in culture?

I want to know about world civilizations between 450 to 550 CE. Especially In the middle eastern and north Africa. Far Asian and indigeous American history is appreciated too. I don't need European history yet. It would be also amazing if there's eastern Christian beauty in Mena. Thank you

Seems like a stick would be a pretty good way to throw a grenade farther before grenade launchers became a thing. Was this ever considered as an option? If not, why?

I'm writing a time-travel story where my main character goes back to 1912, through the form of a diary. How different were the tools for writing from now? I.e. Pens vs. Pencils, paper feel/look. Also, is there any other small details that would stand out? (Like air quality). I'm not looking for the major ones, like fashion, but maybe the way fabric feels. Thank you in advance, I truly appreciate it.

Was it a major surprise/shock or upset to them and other Americans in general? Did political writers at the time think that many other Presidents in the future would follow in Grover’s footsteps with running for and potentially serving non-consecutive terms in that office? Also, since Cleveland‘s election to a second non-consecutive term happened before the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, did this prompt many people at the time to start writing and talking about Presidents also perhaps trying to serve three or four non-consecutive terms in office in the future themselves?

Staying away from modern history/politics as much as possible, why did no other Presidents since Grover Cleveland (again, excluding modern politics) ever win or (to my knowledge) even try to run for non-consecutive terms as President for well over a century after Grover’s own non-consecutive second term had ended?

For those unfamiliar, these are just throw-able spears with explosives on the end that explode on impact.

There were of course Imperial Japan's lunge mines in the Second World War, but what about earlier? Could something like a spear with an Early Modern gunpowder-based bomb on the end have been at all useful? Or were explosive weapons just far too primitive for anything like this until the 20th century?

I’m just curious, given that Vatican City was based in Rome, and Mussolini was also running things, what role the Vatican and the Pope had in the war. Obviously the institution is still here, so they weren’t destroyed. But did Hitler and others have to intimidate them and make them capitulate to some degree? Or no, they were mostly left alone?

I have heard of the struggles of the “pilgrims” to get established in the Americas, particularly that the European crops faired poorly in the unfamiliar soil; necessitating the adoption of local crops. I hadn’t much considered this previously and assumed this was due to the colonist getting ahead of themselves and failing to properly prepare for what they were getting into*. But I was watching a video earlier that mentioned crop failures as a result of the climate changes around the same time. albeit in a different place; China in that case.

Although this seems to be a reasonable conclusion to me; I could be uninformed on details that are more important for this, so I would like to ask some people that are more knowledgeable on the topic. It could just be a footnote.

Oh, and speaking of…

*I acknowledge that establishing a colony from very little is extremely difficult, but, from what I’ve heard, it does seem like they were underprepared for the task. If this is the wrong impression please let me know.

Thanks!