Not including any other Middle Eastern rebels. Was the British Empire ever at odds with the Turks? This question is simply out of curiosity.

In the article "Bolshiness is back" in the most recent issue of The Economist, Adrian Wooldridge opens with the following statements:

This is a period of miserable centenaries. First, in 2014, came that of the outbreak of the first world war, which destroyed the liberal order.

What does Mr. Wooldridge mean by this? Is this a lament of the decline of British Imperialism? Or is he just referring to the balance of power that was present in Europe during the late half of the 19th century? How could the war cause a decline in liberal order when the was waged between and won by large empires? I'm missing the point here.

I noticed that there was a high school in Jacksonville called Robert E. Lee high school and I wondered if he ever set foot in the state of Florida.

I have recently become fascinated with the Spanish Civil War, and wish to write a story from the perspective of an anarchist fighting in the Republican forces. Where should I look for the best information and sources? Thanks!

Do we know if they were easily recognizable when compared to other cultures and peoples in the 9th century Irish Sea region?

Was it really very common for immigration authorities at Ellis Island to change or mix up the names of immigrants in the past?

I've heard several stories from friends about their last name resulting from mixups at Ellis Island at the time of their immigration to the United States. My own last name is the name of a town in another country, for instance, but is not a common last name in that country. It seems likely it was inadvertently or deliberately changed. Did this happen a lot, and if so, why? When was it fixed?

My quesiton is, were there "religious" wars in Europe before the introduction of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity,Judaisim, and Islam)?

By this I mean a "just" war in spreading the faith.

My understanding of the Celtic Gods' role in society was to inspire, and bring strength/good Omens. With the Greeks and Romans, they were part of the Civil Religion and Tradition. But people did not say "For Athena", and justify conquering a territory to spread this new religion.

Or did they?

Did the people in charge just not really care? Many in the US are hypersensitive anytime someone suggests policies that lean in the direction of a planned economy (in example, the auto bailout had directators)

Was this an economic consideration, to encourage slaveholders to increase the slave population domestically, or something else?

This seems like a joke but it's not

I've read three volumes of the Oxford History of the United States and I'm thinking about reading the whole series, but they haven't yet published volumes covering the period from the Civil War to the Great Depression. Are there any similar works that cover this period?

So far I have found H.W. Brands's American Colossus, which covers 1865-1900, but seems to focus on economic issues a little more than I might like.

Including our morality, our concept of the human person, the concept that all humans are fundamentally equal, the concept that slavery is wrong, and the concept that might does not make right?

If it's only because there's a lot of sheep in Wales I'm disappointed.

Also apologies in advance for any Welsh who feel offended by this question, this was not my intention and I'm sorry.

I saw this was posted only once before, two years ago without any replies so I'm hoping someone will answer this time!

Was there any reason other than to have control over the Christians in the empire?

Was there ever a design process with various entries or was it something that was always in the minds of those who orchestrated nazi germany?

Hi folks, The colonial narrative of North America seems to be focused on the East Coast, with the major European powers competing to control the region. Yet, it is well known that the Russian fur trade was a major player in the Pacific Northwest during the 18th century. Aside from the settlement of Sitka, do we see any evidence for Russian efforts to permanently colonize the West Coast, as opposed to simply extracting the resources?

Was it an issue of cost? Reliability? Lack of necessity, even?

Obviously some in the South were concerned that outlawing slavery would damage their economy. Was their any attempts by Northern abolitionists to make a detailed and studied plan for a possible economic transition for the South if they agreed to end slavery?