I distinctly remember, and believed for years, he died in 1979. I remember seeing a report too. What's up with that?

I've read that the Eiffel Tower was intended as a temporary attraction for the 1889 World’s Fair and then it was supposed to have been dismantled. I've always wondered, if they had known it was going to become permanent, would they have built it differently? (For example, a stronger foundation, rust resistant materials or finishes, etc.)

I'm also curious about the same thing in regards to the London Eye.

I can't find much info online- a google book without previews, Wikipedia and that's about it. According to Wikipedia he was a visionary leader and founder of the Tarascan state, but what is even meant by visionary leader? Was he previously a military commander? How much is known about him?

Was there a religious prohibition against going if you were not a druid? Did the local ruler have sway over access and repair/modification?

I was just reading Monsters in America by Poole- he says something in the intro about how (paraphrasing, forgive) academics have lost touch with the public and the public only reads pop history because it is a damn good yarn and nothing else.

I really want to bridge that gap with the book I am writing. It is about a murder in 1896 and I'm trying to put the story within the context of the time so that the reader will know what was happening in the US in the late nineteenth century (roughly).

Any general advice or suggestions? Am I crazy for not using footnotes? Should it have any "narrative" qualities? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I'm thinking particularily of Germany, but also other countries that weren't in a life or death situation.

How do you get people to fight (unless its life/death) only 20ish years after the unmitigated horror that was WWI?

WWI is more understandable to me, as war was seen more as a jolly good time then the horrid sufferfest it turned out to be.

How did people who fought in the first sign up for a second modern war?

How did parents who'd survived the first send their children?

I can understand the countries who fought for their lives, but countries who didn't have to. How could you even convince people to get out there?

edit: I'm talking about people who volunteered

I've read that the northern colonies were far more hawkish, which is usually attributed to British taxation being a much bigger economic issue for the New York/New England shipping industry.

The impression I've always gotten is that the South was more on the fence with the whole war thing because the cotton/tobacco trading situation was suiting them fine under England's rule. On the other hand, England seemed like it was moving a lot faster to outlaw slavery, which (I'd imagine) would make secession a lot more attractive to southern colonies.

tl;dr was there a serious movement in South Carolina or Georgia or anywhere else to be like "Hey let's stay with England!" If so, how close was that to being a reality?

I've been reading on the French Republic and subsequent French Empire and I found the subject of Poland very interesting. Napoleon destroyed his entire empire trying to create and defend the Duchy of Warsaw. How is this viewed in Poland, is he a celebrated hero, despised as a conqueror, is it bittersweet? I wonder what the perspective is.

I've read various articles (mostly Wikipedia and history blogs) but i cannot grasp the role of religion for the Ottomans: Was spreading Islam the main motivation that fueled their conquest? Was Vienna THE bulwark of Christianity or just a local battle, which happen to be the physical endpoint of the Ottomans reach? And what are those "golden apples"?

The Atlantic Wall was very well defended and stopped the Allies for several years. Prior to D-Day, the Allies had taken North Africa and most of Italy.

This provided plenty of staging area to invade Southern France and move northward to Paris, Northern France, Low Countries, and into Germany. If Western France could be encircled and destroyed, the Allies would have another landing site closer to the UK.

Was this option considered? From my point of view, timing this with Operation Bagration could have worked even better than D-Day.

Edit: Attitude of Southerners towards Northerners and vice versa. Was the partition somewhat like the India-Pakistan split of 1947?

I know that Napoleon crowned himself unlike Charlemagne because he didn't want the Pope to have power over him like he did over Charlemagne, but what else? Their conquests look kind of similar but I imagine that's just a coincidence. Was Charlemagne just a propaganda piece or was he more?