Was it a good time to be a farmer? What did it take for the farmers to be unsuccessful in their business?

For example, when Charles V was in charge, why wasn't Spain incorporated into the Empire, or the Polish lands of Prussia pre-dissolution, or also how Austria owned Hungary, yet Hungary itself was not in the Empire.

Was there also oppressive treatment to them similar to Jews and gypsies?

My great-great-grandmother Kitsa Grancharova was born in Vasiliada (Βασιλειάδα), Kastoria in 1903 and immigrated to the United States in 1925. Throughout her life, she always said she was Greek, and she was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

However, she was raised by her aunt Maslina Grancharova, who was a member of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (which I know to have been quite pro-Bulgarian) and participated in the Ilinden Uprising (Εξέγερση του Ίλιντεν). Maslina was expelled from Greece in 1913 along with several of her relatives, and she moved to Bulgaria. In addition, a recent document I found shows that my grandmother Kitsa was married in Sofia, Bulgaria, not in Kastoria where she and her husband were born.

Is there some historical reason that could explain this discrepancy?

I'm reading a biography of an 18th century British general and when he is offered the position of commander-in-chief of the Army in America in 1782 by Prime Minister Shelburne he has a laundry list of requests before accepting. Among them is a colonelcy in a Regiment of Dragoons. When Lord North replaces Shelburne in 1783 the colonelcy is placed in doubt and North tells him that he is behind other generals in line of preference and seniority.

So why is a colonelcy of Dragoons such a big deal? He got the other perks he requested with the appointment to commander-in-chief like a promotion to lieutenant-general and a knighthood, why is a mere position of colonel so important in comparison?

Me and my father got into something of a debate, he was saying that the civil war was primarily caused over states rights, evidenced by the fact that states within the Confederacy, even after it had been formed and seceded, threatened to leave it after their perceived autonomy was being violated by an increasingly centralized government. I claimed that this was not the case, and that it does not demonstrate that the South left for reasons entirely revolving around preserving the institution of slavery. So, who is correct? Did the South seceded for reasons regarding states rights, evidenced by the fact that states still threatened to secede after their rights were threatened, even after the confederacy was formed? Or did they leave because of Slavery?

It seems to me like the people who praise the Soviet Union, and the people who hate it were probably in the same social class during the time they lived there and probably lived similar lifestyles.

As a secondary question, why was the soviet union so demonized in western Europe and the USA, but praised in many areas of Asia and Eastern Europe (And remains the same way today)? I grew up in the USA, so I have a pretty biased and ignorant education on this matter.

It seems like every WWI documentary (or at least every one that covers the Somme) makes it a point to mention what a disaster the Pals Battalion program turned out to be, as entire streets, villages, and even workplaces could loose their young men with one bad trip over the wall.

What I'm wondering is if there was any upside or positive element to the Pals Battalions that gets overlooked amidst the overall narrative of catastrophe.

I apologize if this has been covered before, I couldn't find anything in search or the FAQ

Can you tell me why the claim is right or wrong? I had a conservative teacher who always said it, but I wasn't sure so I felt I needed to ask.

How much of Alexander's victories were due to actual tactical/strategic skill and how much was due to the brilliant, innovative military his father left him?

Reading about the three main dialects of Serbo-Croatian on Wikipedia, it struck me that the origin of the Croatian national identity is quite unclear. Leaving aside the Slovenians for a moment, there seems to be a relatively clear origin of the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian identities -- being Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox, respectively, and also the fact that they were often ruled by different foreign powers throughout their history.

However, with the Slovenians in the picture, it gets somewhat more unclear. One thing is that the Slovenians and the Croatians are both Catholic. But what raised this question for me in the first place has to do with language: of the three Serbo-Croatian dialects, all present in Croatia, one, Kajkavian is (according to Wikipedia) closer to Slovenian than to the other two dialects spoken in Croatia. Not just that, but Kajkavian appears to have been the dominant dialect in Croatia in the early days of nationalism in the region.

This leads to the question of how the idea of a Croatian nation of speakers of Kajkavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian was formed, instead of, say, a nation of speakers of Slovenian and Kajkavian (which seems somewhat natural given the similarities between the two languages), or even a national identity encompassing all Catholic speakers of Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian and Slovenian. I guess what I'm actually looking for is an overview of the origins of the Croatian and Slovene national identities, with some insight as to why they are different. What did the "Croats" have in common that led to the creation of a common national identity, that the "Slovenes" did not?