I am doing a history project, and the sources that I have so far don't really explain it. Was it that people liked the lack of King Farouk? Was it his personality or persuasiveness? Was it his new constitution? Any and all answers are appreciated, as well as sources that I can cite from in a paper.

Thank you.

And if yes, were there any organized leagues? How were they set up?

I'm thinking about the European explorers and colonizers, but how did the west become the west and east the east? Why not the other way around?

Examples: Egypt, Greek, Rome, Mongol, Spain, UK, Russia? It does not look like any of these will make a come back any time soon. I am not an historian so there are probably exceptions. Why what seems like a general trend?

I realize nationalism is a relatively new concept and that back in the day Saladin would've probably identified himself as a muslim above all, but even so I was wondering about his ethnicity.

I was familiar with the English wiki article about him (bad source I know) in which they say he was of Kurdish ancestry (source were two Kurdish men who lived centuries ago). But I've come across the Dutch wiki page about him and there it says that his ethnicity is disputed. Some (mostly Turkish historians) say that he was a Turk, whereas others say that he was an Arab.

I was wondering whether there is a general consensus on this matter or is this one those things that you can never be sure about?

And did his ethnicity play any role for him (or his contemporaries) or was it really just a matter of his religious beliefs?

Thank you.

I'm not sure what the show was called, but it was interesting how they connected the points. I was hoping someone could say how plausible this point could be and hopefully someone saw this show and can add points too.

I understand that they all speak English for the viewer's benefit, but what language would Marco Polo and the Khan spoken in to communicate? Would the Khan know Italian or would Polo have learned Mongolian? Or would they have translators for them? Or would they really have both spoken English to one another as an in between language?

I already checked the book list, it seems that the sources in the French section concentrate more on Napoleon than the revolution.

I have been watching interviews with him recently and I think he has made some interesting points. Some critics say that because his degrees aren't in history, he can't call himself an historian. Thoughts?