Yes this is a homework question (Why was Morocco colonized but Turkey was able to resist it) but I did my research and I'm pretty stumped.

My reason was going to be that Turkey had a strong nationalist sentiment that Morocco lacked. From what I have read, Moroccans were really mixed when faced with Western influences. The Ulama were pretty radical and there were violent rebellions but the upper classes tended to be pretty Western and liked the new consumer culture.

Can anyone help me out or point me to some good articles comparing the two?

I remember in high school (I'm in the US), we learned a lot about ancient greece, a little bit on ancient Egypt, and a whole TON of the history of Europe. The chapters focusing on Asia, middle east, and the rest of africa are sparse and few. Why is this? Was there not as much going on? Not as fascinating? Am I just imagining this?

Rome elected two consuls. My question is, while they shared equal power, was there a “first” consul and “second” consul? One consul started off the year by presiding over affairs and this one usually had senior experience.

Or were naturalized (West)* German citizens always (as in, up to the present-day) able to become (West) German President and/or (West) German Prime Minister after the end of World War II?

*I'm talking about West Germany before the end of the Cold War and about all of Germany after the end of the Cold War.

Also, for the record, the reason that I'm asking this question is that some people here in the U.S. use the fact that Adolf Hitler wasn't a natural-born German citizen to justify keeping the natural-born U.S. citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency. :(

Good evening historians! I'm a volunteer over at a small museum. The place is not significantly funded and is only run by volunteers. Most of the volunteers are elderly and do not have any experience in historical preservation. I have been volunteering there for the past two months and I've mostly done labor work. I have a Bachelors and a Masters in History but I have not ever worked at a museum before. I'm in the military so I have very, very little free time or money to invest in supplies and research since I am working 15 - 16 hour work days. I have looked up some of this stuff online and I have some basic ideas, but I'm looking for some "quick knowledge".

There are some cool paper documents sitting around that I'd like to preserve and display. Some have already been subjected to inappropriate amounts of humidity and/or light and have degraded. Recently, a donor brought in a book with two folded up documents from 1885 and 1890. I was sort of horrified that they were just folded up and shoved into a book. The documents appear to my untrained eye to be original and are in fairly good condition. I'd like to keep things that way.

It seems that light control, humidity control, and pH control are all important here. I finally got to look into the library/archives of the museum, and there's a lot of paper things that are already suffering from various degrees of degredation. Some of this stuff I'd like to display, and all of it I'd like to preserve. Neither the museum or myself have the funds for expensive cases or such, but I imagine there's gotta be a way to protect this stuff. Please help me out, fellow historians!

History is written by the victors, but I wonder if in the losing nations from WWII, have facts that may be difficult to hear been softened or changed over time to lessen the humiliation or damage to national pride?

In light of the upcoming Sun Tzu conference at Vanderbilt University, we would like to pose this question to all the historians here, and perhaps will even post your answers (after asking permission and giving you credit) in our presentation.

It seems we used the term "United States" in the declaration of independence and maybe prior. So how come we only consider the POTUS as beginning with the current constitution?

In order for him to have been Richard's son, that would have had to been an eleven month pregnancy.

I'm looking at what happened right after but also what happened as the years went by. How did the cities evolve as time went on?

What happened in regards to how they were governed?

What happened in regards to the population?

What happened to public works such as sewer systems and the like?

Disregarding the typical George Bull responses about racial/cultural superiority, why is it that the English came to control the Irish and Scotish and Welsh and not the other way around.

What advantages did the English have? What disadvantages is the Scottish, Irish and Welsh have?

I imagine that the process of getting both of the nations to reconcile would be easier after the end of the cold war, but I would not want to assume. Did the ASEAN respond to the Vietnamese-Cambodian war as a unified group, as individual nations, or am I so off base I need to reconsider my question?

This question stems from watching a lot of medieval films lately. Many of them portray the hero as being able to fight off large groups of bandits or soldiers in battle.. I know that it's a Hollywood theme and isn't very accurate, but how many people would a famous skilled warrior realistically be able to fight off simultaneously? Could be from any region.

I'm learning some about the revolts against Rome in one of my classes right now, and this question popped up in my mind. How would the Sabbath work during an armed conflict?

From when? From where? Why?