I was born in 1981 and I've only ever heard it referred to as a discography.

The French Revolution of 1789 is considered a turning point in history as it helped spread ideas such as liberalism and nationalism but the revolution in 1848 resulted in a wave of revolutions throughout Europe. National unification movements and the idea of the rule of proletariat gained significant strenght through the Revolutions of 1848. It's true that the Revolutions of 1848 had less direct political impact but could we say that it was more influental in the long run?

I'm a former machinist and have been watching the "Forgotten Weapons" channel on YouTube. I'm consistently impressed with the quality of the machining on guns made in the 1800s.

I would like to know more about the processes, tools, and advancements that made that level of precision possible. Would love a book recommendation, as well.

I was always raised under notion that most wars are fought over resources/territory than ideals (though ideals are a convenient excuse)

(I know how I sound, apologies)

After WW1 the Austro-Hungarian Empire was divided up to the point of irrelevancy.
The Germans however got to keep most of their land apart from some Polish/Baltic holdings.
Especially considering the nation was still very young it is strange that the allies kept it mostly intact and instead burdended it with massive debts that would inevitably anger this still powerful country.
Was splitting it up considered by the Allies?
(In states like Prussia/Rheinland/Bavaria)

i have heard that the second world war was horrible but the advancements made in technology was amazing, any thoughts?

What was the initial reaction to it? Did it make new fashions that relied on lots of ruffles and frills unaffordable for the middle classes?

In particular, I'm interested in how it was seen by the Europeans and the Chinese. Did they remark on the unusual nature of this arrangement? Would official correspondence be addressed to the emperor or the shogun?

So when did they come to a point were they have very little direct influence over politics and the general running of their respective empires, countries and lands?

I hope I'm not in the wrong sub, but I'm just curious.

[deleted]

I won't get into the theological background of my question, but I was in a discussion with a friend who claimed there were no wars/conflicts during this time and I just find it hard to believe.

Please include sources. Thanks a million, reddit!

Question says it all? Please ignore the divided part as I've found out the answer myself. But I've always wondered if there two Viceroyalties then you'd probably think that there'd be two countries that came out from them, I'd assume Mexico and Peru but now this happened.

Why were there two Viceroyalties? Was it something to do with the distance or the natives living there?

In 18th century, British administration had a conservative attitude towards indian matters, treading carefully with introduction of western ideas, considering indian civilization as different but not necessarily inferior and admiring indian culture and tradition ( Hastings, Burke, munro)

By 1800 the view changed and they became critical of indian culture and considered indian customs as uncivilized, unscientific. This approach being used to justify the colonisation.

And then there were the radicals, with humanistic and rational thoughts and went beyond imperialism.

My question is what would you call the group in the middle who became critical of indian culture and deemed it inferior? Liberals? Imperialists? Reformist? Or just anti - conservatists? Will TB Macaulay come under this category?