Why is the French revolution more associated with liberation and liberal reform than the American revolution?

It seems to me that today the French revolution is more inspirational and more 'popular' when compared to the American one. The American one to my knowledge happened prior to the French revolution and yet revolutionaries seem to regard the French as an example to draw inspiration from. I always thought the American version was more original in its thinking and set a pretty good example of liberalism and modern democracy. The French one seems more violent and didn't work out so well for democracy as they had dictators like Nepolian come out on top. Can anyone here help explain why it is so highly regarded and popular in today's world?

Also, how do we know the year that anything happened b.c. with any level of accuracy? It's not like people were writing 130 b.c. on their term papers.

Wouldn't that have made more sense from Hitler's standpoint?

Seriously, I cannot get over it unless there is some religious reason, because elsewise, the garrison did not number greatly, and even if it was of great number to pour out if the Hellenic somehow magically ambushed them in order to hit the rearguard, well, the same thing it made the Akropolis good for defense makes it bad for sallies, that not many numbers are needed to hold the path, that would go both ways, so either way, the garrison was to be trapped, so once again, why was it left at all? Even if they were priests or whatever, I just... can't understand it. Please help me understand

Basically the title. I'm not sure when mirrors became a household item, and I assume rich people owned them. Would a peasant farmer go his life with only his relfection in water to tell how he looked, or could he be able to own a mirror?

When we think of the future we think of flying cars, advanced technology, shiny chrome buildings, etc. But what did people use think the future was going to be like before modern technology and power. IE: 1600s, 1200s, and earlier.

Personally, I'm not very knowledgeable on medieval to early-modern Japanese history, and was curious, what did the average person think of the fact that the shogun was often the de facto ruler of Japan? I'd imagine that it wouldn't be something that they would think (or care) about too often.

Additionally, considering the status of the Emperor as the "proper" (perhaps not a good term here) ruler of Japan, how was the Emperor's lack of power justified by the de facto rulers or nobility? Besides any notable wars in which it came up, was the topic of right to rule ever debated in texts? Or was the role/scope of the Emperor's position one that just became accepted over time and was just thought of as normal?

As far as time frame, I'll leave it up to whoever wants to answer.

[Reposted as asked]

What was life like in Spain before and at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War? I've read a bit about the politics behind it, the coups, the strikes, and the riots, etc. But what about the average citizen. Did they see war as in evitable or was the rebellion unexpected? Had people chosen sides already, and if so how did that affect their daily lives before hostilities broke out. I've read "for whom the Bell tolls", and it seems from the partisan character's anecdotes that most people were ready to take up arms and that whole towns could be violently divided.

Also how many people actually went out to fight? What was life like for people who just didn't choose a side?

I know this is a big question, and I'd love sources and reading that I can peruse on my own in addition to any answers you all may have.

Thanks

From my understanding of Latin I understand it can be "long winded" for everyday conversations. But western Europe had a language that every nation pretty much understood it just seems like it would have naturally stuck around for diplomacy.

[deleted]

Also, how much backlash was their across the empire as a result, and to what extent was the Roman paganism integrated into Christianity?

The taxation without representation?

I've been trying to do research on the Young Turks Revolution, but I can't find a straight forward explanation of its historiography. If someone could explain to me the basics of it, or point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated.

Christianity,Judaism,Islam like most of the religions,are said to be as words of god and words coming from heavens and so on ... written down by the prophets for the people to believe in,but obviously and after all this past years it's clear they are all man made believe and political system ,so im curious if there is some bit of history evidence that give more insight to who really written this religions ? it will be nice to know the people that inspired generation for century and no one give them credit for ...(im sincerely sorry if any thing i said is in any way offensive,i'm just curious and i cant find any thing in the internet. )

I read that Pershing himself never did that, but did something like that incident ever occur in the Philippines?

The story that Trump is telling about Pershing reminds me of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, in which rifle cartridges were greased with beef/pig fat, and Hindu and Muslim sepoys had to bite the cartridges to load the gun. Is that a possible source of inspiration for that story?

The Triarii were the oldest and most experienced veterans, so wouldn't they presumably be better trained to fight with the gladius in the style of the Principes and Hastati? Was their use of the spear an old vestige of the phalanx system?

Additionally, was there considerable retraining that was needed in becoming a Triarius?