I've been doing a lot of reading about the Wafd party and the broader political and economic spheres in Egypt during this period and I'm getting a bit overwhelmed.

From what I've gathered, it seems that lack of education/literacy across the population really hampered the spread and impact of revolutionary ideas. On top of that, it also seems that British tampering in Egypt's political scene (and their paranoia about the Suez/route to India) stagnated organic political growth. Lastly, as is the case almost anywhere, nepotism and corruption was rampant.

Anyways, I'm just trying to put my finger on a straight answer here.

Thanks.

Spain, Britain, France, Russia, etc unified little after medieval ages, but why didn't Italy and Germany did?

Is it possible to be both?

Social nationalism vs fascist nationalism?

Democratic social-nationalism sounds kinda nice... Why is it a terrible idea?

My vague impression is that during the Early Republic, the USA was all about hard cider and whiskey. But through the 19th century, lots of different groups were coming over. The biggest, I'd think, were the Germans and their lagered beers, which I know eventually would come to be so dominant, but how quickly did something like that diffuse into the wider American population? What would a broad snapshot of American drinking habits have looked like in... 1840, 1870, 1900?

Hi Are there any books on this?

Thank you

Why was the trial and execution of Charles I at the end of the English Civil War different than any other kings who had been murdered or overthrown (Like Richard III or Henry VI or Edward II)? What makes a legal execution of the sovereign in the name of the law more significant?

As a southerner myself, it would be nice to know of even a few virtuous white folks from this era.

New here. Delete if not relevant, was told to ask you guys.

Okay so I wasn’t alive at the time so I don’t know but I’m genuinely curious: when Richard Nixon was facing charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, contempt of Congress, and eventual impeachment, was there a significant amount of supporters for him that said he was innocent or did like the whole country pretty much collectively condemn him? I mean was anyone saying like that the investigations and Supreme Court were corrupt in some way? Or did most Americans trust the system at that time? I’ve watched a few documentaries but they never really comment on how the public felt about the trial mid-investigation.

Just saw the movie Midway and loved it, but I’m wondering if it’s completely historically accurate.

In most cases, historians have the issue of not having enough written records to go off of. Some cultures don't leave written recorded behind and some records were destroyed or deteriorated due to time. As such, historians often speculate about historical events based on limited information that they do know.

Now, with the Internet and all the documents that are stored within it, would future historians have the opposite problem of having too much information? Many news reports or tweets are technically primary sources from a historical perspective, but they are often bias and sometimes present contradictory views depending on who wrote it. So, would it be more difficult for historians since they have to comb through all the information to minimize bias within the primary sources recorded in the Internet?

(Not sure if this was asked before. If so, sorry.)

Quito, Caracas, San Jose, La Paz, Bogotâ, etc.

What´s the reason for wanting to locate high up in the mountains? Seems counterintuitive because it´s difficult to climb mountains, it´s harder to build roads, especiall wide ones, and both arable and buildable land are at a premium.

Unfortunately this question doesn't really fit easily into here or askscience, but I've got my fingers crossed since many on Reddit tend to be multidisciplinary and generally inquisitive.

Late 18th and early 19th century navies made use of both carronade and long guns.

I know the general idea was a much heavier but slower short range cannon ball for the carronade, while the long gun made use of lighter but faster shot.

My question is this: Was there any difference in force/damage inflicted, in say, Joules?

A fast light object can impart just as much energy as a slow and heavy one. And with the Carronade being much less accurate I'm wondering what the upside was.

As I understand it in order for one to become a capitalist one needs to live within a society/culture where:

• Markets are a thing(as in you can go someplace and trade stuff)
• money is a thing
• Hiring people for a wage is a thing

And also one should:

• Reinvest part of the profits(into better tools for his workers, better workers, better incentives for workers to produce more within the same ammount of time etc) so that his workers can produce more one year than the previous year

• Have Demand for this ever increasing production so that one does not run out of demand within one's lifetime

By this definition what do we know about the early beginings and development of capitalism?

If this is not a good definition please correct me.

Thank you

Up until recently I had no idea U.S. Presidents other than Lincoln and JFK had been assassinated - why don't McKinley and Garfield get the same recognition?

Basically how did people in big and heavy armor go to the bathroom? Specially since they often needed help putting the armor on.

How did a landed noble with far flung estates move their money around.

So if I have land in lets say Brittany and normandy, or Northern Italy. In whatever time period you specialize in but we can also say 800 during Carolingian Empire or 200 AD roman empire. How do I get my tax revenue from Britanny if I’m hundreds of miles away from it? Is it just shipped by cart? Wouldnt it just get robbed by other nobles?