Dear Historians, how do you establish that historical event X caused (or is part of a set of causes of) event Y? How do you convince yourself and your colleagues of such causal relations?

Hey, I've just watched a video from Extra History detailing aspects of Otto von Bismarck's life that led up to the First World War, including various bits about his youth all the way into some of his career as a politician in pre-unification Germany. But I've gotten no explanation from there or on Wikipedia, as to why he was so interested in the kind of unification that he seems to have pushed for very hard during the struggle - Prussian unification, rather than Austrian unification, which (according to my sources on Wikipedia and YouTube) appears to imply an authoritarian form of unity, rather than a democratic one.

Why might conservatives like Otto von Bismarck be so opposed to a parliamentary democracy? How did they think it would affect their more traditional, and conservatives, lives and/or lifestyles? Thanks.

As I understand it, specially packaged dog food was invented in the mid-1800s and was a big industry by the mid 20th century. When did the change happen? Was it all at once, or did it gradually catch on? Was dog food a specialty only for rich dogs at first, or was it seen as inferior to giving them meat/bones/etc.? Were dogs that switched healthier, happier, more productive (or seen to be that way)?

The quote itself comes from Renfield, a committed insane man, talking to Quincey, a Texan: "[Texas] reception into the Union was a precedent which may have far-reaching effects hereafter, when the Pole and the Tropics may hold allegiance to the Stars and Stripes."

I just find it odd they speak of it as momentous and influential over fifty years after the fact.

As a couple bonus questions? Did other cultures handle this differently or was the policy the same every where? Did Twins ever rule together?

This particular quote is from his letter to Engels, 17 December 1869. I can't find an online source but it's on page 405 of volume 43 of his collected works.

Were anti-Russian remarks like this known to the Bolsheviks of Lenin's era, or was it not until later that they were discovered? How did Russians reckon with this?

For the most part in the bronze and iron age said political entities were either kingdoms or tribes but never city states. What's the explanation for this?

I am essentially translations that I can cite safely. For example I'm researching the establishment of the gulags and the wikepedia page points me to "The Gulag was officially established on April 25, 1930 as the ULAG by the OGPU order 130/63 in accordance with the Sovnarkom order 22 p. 248 dated April 7, 1930." and I wish to verify this by going through the transcripts of these documents, where can I find them? And if there's a particular article in the Soviet penal code that is relevant to my research and I want to be able to compare different versions of it based off amendments where can I find those?

I have also research come across mentions of "Declassified gulag archives" what exactly to these refere to and they publically available?

I need to know this information and I can t find this anywhere, let me know if you know the answer or where I could find it thx

Realized it was one of those things I just assumed wasn't an option. So, why DIDN'T Lincoln just make slavery illegal when he took office?

How did the Early Christian Church in the years 100-400 AD view the office of the Pope (Bishop of Rome)? Did they regard him as the absolute head of the church? What kind of authority did he hold during this time, and at the Council of Nicaea? Thank you!

I need 6 primary sources for this essay I have due in a couple of weeks. I’ve only managed to find one so far which are the records kept by Sima Qian called “Accounts of the First Emperor.” I have plenty of secondary sources but these primary sources seem hard to come by. Thank You.

I know that the Western Front was relatively stagnant with trench warfare for years. I also know that soldiers didn't just stay in the trench the entire time. Sometimes they would leave, go on leave, go back to HQ, whatever.

I guess what I'm asking is: how? I mean, besides an offensive or something. Wouldn't you get shot if you left your trench? Was it incredibly high risk to leave? Did the soldiers have some type of tunnel system or something for avoiding enemy gunfire?

Long story short, my family has been looking into some family history and we suspect that one of my great-great grandmothers might have had an affair and (possibly?) a lovechild which she passed off as her legitimate child. The child in question was born in 1889 when the mother was mid-40s... she had two older children previously born in the 1870s. The child was supposedly considered the black sheep of the family and eventually he actually committed suicide in the late 1920s. He left behind two daughters who believed their dad was possibly a lovechild. This is a long story, lots of family rumors, not a whole lot of details.

How likely would it be for a married Victorian woman to keep a love child and pass that child off as her legitimate offspring? Are there any examples of a Victorian woman having an affair, passing the child off as her as her legal husband’s? Also, is there anyway we can dig deeper into this sort of thing beyond birth records, diaries, rumors, etc?

"Incompetent" is a joke--I just wanted to emphasize that he was not whitewashing them. 'Stubborn psycho-crusaders' is probably a more accurate description of Crowley's story. My current guess is that there was an equilibrium in the Indian Ocean where war was discouraged by the sheer profitability of peace, so that there was less state-subsidized military innovation than in Europe, where states invested heavily in military technology. Also, while not explaining why the Portuguese had like longer-ranged canons, the fact that they were not on home turf really did allow them much more military flexibility, so it is not like their success was completely tech-determined.

In comics, animation and films poisons are generally portrayed as green. In German there is even the color "giftgrün", poison green. Where does this association come from?

Though he was very well respected, why did nobody see fit to run against Washington? I imagine the office of presidency was quite valued