I know I should be checking out Marxist works for the European things, but I'm stumped as to what I should be checking out on the others.

Being nearsighted myself, I've always wondered that.

I understand why the Glorious Revolution happened, but don't understand why William of Orange was asked to become King of England. What was his claim or connection?

All I hear is the bad, was there any good that came out of it?

In movies you always see two massive groups of people charging at each other and then it looks like chaos. How would two members of the same army avoid fighting each other?

Let me give you a frame of reference; while watching programs like Downton Abbey or similar, we are reminded of the complex social customs that were in place, and are still in some circles, that most don't follow any more. Rising when a lady stands, the myriad titles and ranks and positions, this many forks and that many inches apart on the table, specific clothing for different functions of the day, -there seems no limit. While I know that in some circles, people do still follow many of these rules, in many nations -but it seems like in the past they were much more strictly followed and much more complicated.

Roughly when did such devotion to ritual begin and when did it reach it's absolute peak? What makes them wane when some of these rules have been around for a long time? I know such ritual occurs in all nations, but in the hopes of being specific for purposes of this sub, I'm selecting England's past because I have been exposed to much more of it than elsewhere. Was anywhere even more devoted to these rituals and rules? And finally, is there a field of study for these things specifically that you can point me to for more reading?

Just now I was reading Thomas Cleary's translation of The Book of Five Rings. In the preface, written by Mr. Cleary, it is stated very little is known about the book's author, Miyamoto Mushashi. Almost everything we do know about him comes from The Book of Five Rings itself, according to the preface. It's also stated he's an undefeated duelist. So I started wondering: How certain is it that he was undefeated? Are we just going by his own account? How do we know he's being truthful, if so? Or, is there some sort of outside record we can consult to corroborate his claims?

(I'm mostly focused on Roman counts, but really information on any time period and any empire would be great.)

There are many important battles about which bias is clear, such as Thermopylae, which some sources claim involved over two million people. But with less notable battles, such as the dozens of clashes in Caesar's The Gallic War, are primary sources still reliable? And if we can't use them because they are too biased or just unreliable in some other way, how do we estimate?

I've learned about World War One in history class but never fully understood why Germany was entirely blamed over such a complex war.

Recently Europa Universalis has announced a change to its warfare mechanics, specifically how forts work. With the new system I plan are trying a strategy revolving around absolutely no fort construction on Great Britain, since my rivals will have to get past my wooden wall of ships to access my homeland. This made me wonder if the British Empire of the post medieval world invested into any significant land forts to defend the country.

I haven't heard of anyone calling themselves an Engelist... "Marxist" does role off the tongue, to be fair. ;)

Did Marx play more of a prominent role in the development of communist theory?

I've read a lot about how the POUM was not exactly on good terms with either the Republican government (including the Communist Party) nor Trotsky himself, and I know that the POUM was declared illegal more-or-less because they were blamed for the May Days in Barcelona.

What I don't really understand is why was the POUM singled out? I know the anarchists were blamed too, but even they seem to have gotten off easy compared to the POUM. (And honestly, it seems like it would be easier to place the full blame for the May Days on the anarchists, not their barely participating allies, the POUM) Is it because the POUM were anti-Stalinist and opposed to the mainstream Communist Party in Spain? If so, why did the Communists care so much about the POUM? I don't see why the POUM's dissent would be such a big deal to the Communists. Were they really that afraid of POUM encouraging a revolution?

Apologies if I have some of my facts wrong.

I always see black and white photos of construction workers perched on steel beams way up in the air during bridge or skyscraper construction. They don't seem to be wearing any safety cables or harnesses.

Just how dangerous was that work? Did we lose a lot of workers that way? And was there compensation for the families

Edit: should have clarified, I mean in the US

I do not speak Latin.

I am new to this sub, so I would like to apologize for any unprofessionalism I may show through my question, but I've heard good things about this sub and its mods, so you guys can sort out any rule I may have broken. This question has suddenly infested my mind, and I thought this would be the appropriate place to ask it. I'm sure this question could be asked for a number of events and eras, but this particular one piqued my interest since I cannot imagine American newspapers saying only good things about the decade (not including other issues mostly unrelated to the Roaring 20s, if that makes sense). Thank you all in advance.

A lot of it wasn't intentional (germs, diseases), but a lot of it kind of was intentionally designed to wipe out the natives to the americas.