I know that from pretty much until the early Middle Ages until into the colonial era England and France were fierce rivals but there's a gap in my knowledge until they're suddenly allies in WWI which lasts until today. What happened?

If I'm correct, Charles V ruled over Spain, Austria, Portugal and some Italian kingdoms (not sure of all of them but I know he had many kingdoms under his belt). Why didn't he just merged them to make one single country?

If so, how did the monarchy react?

I've heard a lot that there is actual proof outside of the bible (which isn't really a reliable source) but i haven't found any of this and the curiosity is killing me.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

An explanation of why it came about would be cool too

The only country whose abolition of serfdom I really know about is France, where it was done away with during the French Revolution. But when exactly did serfdom end in England? (And other Western European countries for that matter.) How exactly was this done, and what was the reason for England to get rid of the peasantry when it did? Why did it remain in France for longer?

For whatever reason I can't find any information on the functional aspects of the organization.

Specifically, what I'd like to know is: -What was the internal structure of the party? I found out that their was a national central committee that was the executive body, then regional 'chairmen', then local captains, lieutenants etc then the general membership. But how did that work? What did the chain of command look like? How were promotions given out?

-What was the division of labor like? Was there specialized labor (medics, speakers, writers, editors etc)? What was the role of the general membership?

-What was their educational program? I understand it was 6 weeks long, that it was required for party membership, that Guerilla Warfare by Che and The Little Red Book by Mao were required reading, but is there a syllabus or something? Did they use specific quotes from specific works? What work were students expected to do? Was there a test at the end?

-How did they decide all this?

I know this is a lot. If you can only answer a couple aspects of this, or if you can point me to resources that can, that would be great too.

I know Stalin was aware of the Bomb before Truman was because of Soviet spies. Did he have access to the science? What was the quality of information that the Soviets were receiving from these spies?

I was doing some research on the empire and was quite astonished with the power they held at points in history. Although they never really were able to break into Europe. So to what extent would you say the Ottoman Empire became a European power?

Edit: in 1945.

I'm really not well versed in World History. I've taught it before, but under NCLB, you're stuck basically testing them on shit they could reference on Wikipedia.

Now common core is different. It's more skills focused. Instead of drill facts, I'm teaching them how to write, read, and speak.

I'm breaking my curriculum up into themes: philosophy, genocide, industrialization, globalization, and a few undecideds.

I wanted to come to the pros. I can't really get into Asia or anything; I have to stick to the development of western civ.

What stands out to you as engaging or really key to human understanding on a global scale?

I know this is history, but I'd like to see if I could do a projection into the future.

Just to clarify: I'm looking for what sticks out to you guys as 'big' ideas.

The Roman's had almost double the infantry the Carthaginians had and from what I hear their infantry was generally superior in pitched battle. So when they were encircles why couldn't they just punch through?

I also want to ask if she actually did have a countess go around and pick guys she thought the empress may enjoy and try them out herself before recommending them to Catherine. Do we have any record of her thoughts on her duties? Sounds like a pretty good gig.

Church clergy tend to be elites and educated. I'm not sure if evidence exists out there, but is there anything that tells us whether key members in the Vatican actually personally rejected these scientific claims, or was it just a ploy to maintain Church power (i.e. they believed the science, but pretended to reject it)?

When I refer to having a personality I mean like being able to poke fun at other people and events. Like if people from a thousand years in the future looked back they would see memes and youtube videos showing that people from this century had a sense of humor. I'm just wondering if there is anything like that that shows people from the past had a sense of humor (I'm sure they did, but is there anyway we can actually see this?).