I'm currently looking into the Ottomans (full disclosure, it's for an essay) and their rise to prominence prior to the fall of Constantinople, and all the sources I've found have just attributed it to a weakened Byzantium, fractured political climate and the prominence of Islam within their elites. But surely this would also apply to any number of the other Turkic states in Anatolia, so what made the Ottomans special that they were able to become the major power and last for six centuries? Or does anyone know of something that could point me in the right direction, at least (since I know AskHistorians doesn't like to do work for people?)

I have been reading about Louis X of France and I would like some more information about the subject of unborn heirs.

Louis X died leaving a daughter of questionable paternity from his first marriage and a wife pregnant with a possible male heir. I would like to know:

1. If a King had no living heir but was survived by their wife, was there a procedure to check for pregnancy before crowning the next in line?

2. How would the Queen be protected against powerful people with an interest in her death?

3. Have there been any similar cases?

Thank You

Here in the Balkans you can hear from Serbs and Croats that Bosniaks are mostly islamized Serbs(and other Slavs plus Balkan inhabitants at the time). Bosniaks claim that they are people separate from Serbs and Croats that received Islam under Otoman occupation. I know that the Bosnian Church did exist but I don't know how or when was it created? Do Bosniaks have a connection with Serb and Croatian tribes that emigrated from White Serbia and White Croatia? Are there any genetic studies on the issue?

I imagine that they were about the only sources Germany could have had for tropical goods like coffee, which was available in very limited amounts in Germany, AFAIK.

i.e. suburbs, housewives, microwaves, new chevys, et cetera.

I'm listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast about World War 1, and have just gotten to the point where the Grand Retreat halted and reversed the German advance at the Battle of the Marne.

Why did the German generals swerve from taking Paris? Did Moltke issue orders to pursue the French forces instead of taking the city, or did Kluck and Bülow decide of their own initiative?

I thought that whole idea of the German invasion of France was to force a quick and favorable armistice with enough time to get back defenders to the Russian border, it seems like taking Paris and then suing for terms would be the most effective approach, rather than trying to envelop and destroy the entirety of the enemy.

I'm interested in watching a WWII documentary which talks mainly about the politics, economics, geography, causes, etc. about the second World War. One that explains Hitler's propaganda, how was Stalin's governmet during his era, why did the USA get involved, Charles de Gaulle, etc.

All the ones I seem to find focus way too much in either stories of civilians and soldiers, or military tactics and combat, etc, and I don't really care too much about that.

Thanks in advance.

What was the level of education in black universities prior to the civil rights movement.

Secondly, did other minorities join HBCs?

I haven't asked this question in a year, so hopefully I get some insight into this question.

This is my second third try for answers.

By Pa'ao I am reffering to the Tahitian preist who (supposedly at least) very heavenly influenced the Hawaiian religion. He came on the second migration to Hawai'i (from what I understand, most historians agree there was a first migration from the Marquesas to Hawai'i around 300 AD and a later Tahitian one around 1200 AD) and introduced such ideas as Kapu and Human sacrifice to the Hawaiian religion (I am not in anyways saying their religion was bad when it was praticed by the way). I know this is impossible to prove for certain, but I would like to know what most historians think about this. Also, if any of my information is wrong, please let me know.

I am essentially wondering if anyone knows where "the" stereotypical voice, and manner of inflecting one's speech in a specific way to emphasize the dramatic or poignant points of a story, that most reporters and newscasters seem to have nowadays. It is a very specific way of enunciating and pronouncing words, and it is immensely pervasive in televised mainstream media reporting nowadays. How did this trend become so overwhelmingly pervasive? When did it begin, and why?

I would attempt to find an example to post but I'm on my mobile- if this isn't clear enough I can do so once I'm home.

Edit: More detail upon arriving home. I hope that the (somewhat) vague allusions I employed to describe this manner of speaking will suffice. Again, if not, please let me know. I'm genuinely curious about this.

Of the original Spanish colonies that declared independence, many ended up being broken up into smaller states (Federal Republic of Central America, Gran Colombia, United Provinces of the River Plate). Why did Mexico not succumb to the same internal conflicts?

I have an idea for a novel, but I need to understand a lot more about french society leading up to and during WWII. I have a number of topics I'd like a better historical perspective on.

Civilian life from before WWI and continuing on to the occupation.

The French Resistance. Tactics and general culture, as well as how they were viewed by those not actively resisting.

Covert operations in France.

Stage magic, particularly in France during this period.

Any collection of folk tales that would have been commonly told to children in this period that are uniquely french.

the operations of the occupying government, it's policies, and it's leadership.

It is often alleged that European colonizers assisted their operations by conducting biological warfare against native populations, eg at Fort Pitt. Is this allegation true in relation to the outbreak of smallpox in Australia after the arrival of the First Fleet at Botany Bay in 1788?

My understanding is that in the decision for Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its authority in determining if laws were or were not Constitutional, and this decision is the basis for how SCOTUS operates as we know it. But if SCOTUS had to assert this authority in a case, that authority must not have been explicitly granted in the Constitution - it feels like SCOTUS "bootstrapped" its power to check and balance the executive and legislative branches. How did the other branches of government react to SCOTUS "giving itself" power not expressly enumerated in the Constitution?

I was reading a history of kings of Britain/Ireland and read that we really only have records of Anglo-Saxon kings during that time period (barring people like mac Alpin). Is this solely due to the greater Christian influence in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Or are there other major factors?