I am currently in another debate on another sub discussing Gandhi's legacy, and this person gave this claim:

Gandhi gave the British a hard time, but ultimately the British didn't leave India because of Gandhi, they left because they decided to.

How true is this really? Would the British have left without Gandhi doing his part? Was he an "ineffective" supporter of independence, as this person claims?

Additionally, anyone who could help me with the legitimacy of this claim that Gandhi was a "child molester" would be very helpful.

I want to know if they kept their status after the fall of the Roman Empire and if they took part in governing the new kingdoms. What influence did they have on the community and did they write anything about their thoughts on the fall of the Roman Empire in the West?

Gibbons "If a man were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would without hesitation name that which elapsed from the accession of Nerva to the death of Marcus Aurelius." That comes to a period of 84 years, from 96 A.D. to 180 A.D. "Their united reigns are possibly the only period in history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government."

Were these five people competent rulers or did they just happen to come to power when Rome was on the up and up?

So as I understand it Germany's main reason for fighting WWI was that they wanted to launch a pre-emptive attack against a potentially very powerful Russia (the Schlieffen Plan existing just to prevent a lengthy two-front war) and generally to become a European superpower; Austria-Hungary wanted to further subjugate the Balkans; and the Ottomans were just busy being Turkish nationalists (maybe something to do with retaking land lost in the Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars?).

However, most of these objectives seem to be generally based in the idea of "exerting power" and other nebulous concepts. Were there any specific territorial objectives for these powers? What borders might they have settled for as a peace agreement in a realistic Central Powers Win the War scenario?

P.S. I'm not sure if that last question is appropriate here because /r/HistoryWhatIf. I don't mean for the question to be too much of a hypothetical, I'm just wondering about their objectives for if they won.

the US kind of did just that in the Spanish American war, but what about earlier? I know that there was a lot of thought that Canada/Quebec might secede and join the US, but was anyone talking about invading places like Jamaica or Bermuda during the revolution or War of 1812

Why the downvotes?

Ok, so I occasionally see posts regarding Mohammed marrying Aisha when she was six years old and, consumating their marriage when she was 9.

I've also read somewhere that the Muslims of the era were using a different calendar. This difference accounted for her young age and, in reality she was much older. Sort of how ancient Jews were using a different calendar which explained why the Bible depicts people living for several hundred years.

Was this actually the case, did Mohammed actually marry a 6 year old girl and consumate at 9; or are we losing something in translation by using our own Gregorian calendar instead of what was used back then? If that's the case then how old was Aisha when she married in our Calendar?

I've been reading a lot of history lately and it seems that the only way someone wins against guerilla fighters is through genocidal or extremely destructive means. The guerillas always seem to have like a 1:2 KD ratio. Has there been any effective campaign?

Did some Ancient Greeks interpret myth as metaphor? Either purely morality stories or hiding a deeper "divine truth", similar to the views of some modern Christians? Can any Ancient Greeks be described as atheists?

Any kind of sceptical view of Greek mythology from Ancient Greeks is what I'm interested in. Also how widespread were these ideas?

I'd especially appreciate any primary sources you could point me towards for learning more about this. Thankyou.

It's always fascinated me that despite being a synthesis of traditional religions and American culture (in the former two cases) these movements have been viewed as alien by most Americans. What has contributed to that, when sects founded elsewhere (Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist) have been successful?

One of my main areas of historical study and interest is the French Revolution, and more specifically, how international relations and politics were played out during the time period. While I am aware of the broader trends going on, such as continental suspicion and fear of what the Revolution would mean for other countries combined with the desire to see France brought low, I'm looking for anything that goes more in depth on the subject.

Are there any historical values that we know of?

I hope this question is appropriate here, sorry if not.

I'm currently seeing Star Trek (original series) for the first time after having watched The Wire and Dexter, and the contrast in acting techniques is extreme. Star Trek feels like watching a classic play, even ridiculously overacted at times, demonstrated by the episode "The Conscience of the King" where the cast is put next to a crew of Hamlet stage actors. (For the record, other series at the time are very much alike.) And while certainly not literally realistic, modern series have a much more life-like feel to them. Furthermore, there are some independent movies which experiment with actual realism today, something that would probably not have been thinkable in the earlier history of film.

Disregarding the advances in technology, what prompted this schism between stage and cinema / television acting? When and how did people first realize that cameras required a different style, and what were some milestone pieces I could watch to see that change?

Why do some cultures and units use javelins and some bows? Leaving aside javelin-armed melée troops (like Roman legionaries), are their tactical reasons for including both in a force, or is their use simply cultural?

In Western Europe (with the exception of Spain?) javelins seem to have largely fallen out of use some time in the early-high middle ages. Is this because they were unable to penetrate improved armour?