It is clear that the withdrawl of allied support and war weariness in their camps made them less active in support, but how could the Greek presence in Thrace/Western Anatolia be so quickly removed? Not only did they lose the war, but their claims were not even able to be returned being Greek majority. Why did they not meet these goals that were outlined under Sevres? Obviously Greece had a powerful ally on the part of Bulgarians in the first Balkan war, but for the majority of the time the Greeks had tacit French and Italian support. Why did this not seal victory?

Edit: obviously the balkan coalition included more than bulgaria but you know what I mean.

General thoughts/opinions to how this came about are welcome.

I'm quite interested in specific aspects of history such as this, especially how people well-known today were perceived in their times. Considering Shakespeare's works are still quite widely performed today, I was wondering how much fame Shakespeare had in his time.

Some examples:

Helvetii Rugii Lugii Parisii Damnii Cantii Harii Helisii

And many more. This doesnt even include the many with one i, like Gothi, Suebi, and Buri. It seems like every group of people living north of Rome all decided on ending with ii. Even in the UK and Ireland.

Why so many i's?

I've seen vikings blow up in popular culture for the last two decades, with viking rock, viking metal, viking board games, viking video games, and whatnot. But oddly enough I have had a hard time actually pin pointing what vikings actually are. What sources are there that vikings actually existed? Are they like an ethnicity, or is viking just some word people called them? What did they call themselves? What did they do and what are their accomplishments? What's so great about a bunch of guys that go on boats and steal stuff? Who led the vikings?

Inspired by an /r/HistoryPorn picture of Eva Braun, the woman behind the man is often mentioned, but rarely is it ever said what her stance or role in the Nazi regime.

So, was Eva Braun just as guilty as Hitler? Or was she just perhaps a woman trapped with a dictator with no where to go?

Working on some resumes, it occurred to me that educational establishments and qualification boards must have award and grade records going back decades; and town archives must have to keep track of everything not just for historical purposes but as useful records.

What I mean in the main question by ‘practical purposes’ is to exclude purely academic historical and archaeological research.

I imagine that the answer to my question will be century-old birth records and old land claims.

Tell me if it just seems that way because that's where history focuses. If it happened a lot between Native Americans, I would understand why since they didn't have written languages.

I'm reading an historical fiction novel about the crusades in Livonia. The book repeatedly talks about the crusaders use of carrier pigeons to communicate between castles. Did people during the crusades actually use birds to carry messages or is this just imaginative thinking?

For example, some guy in the French countryside who runs a shop or a woman who worked at a restaurant somewhere outside the capitol of Luxembourg. Once the German forces seized control, how was that guy's country shop affected? What did he do or not do now that Germany had invaded and won?

^PS: ^I ^moved ^this ^post ^from ^/r/AskReddit ^and ^then ^to ^/r/ELI5 ^and ^now ^it's ^here. ^:)

I know of the "White Man's Burden," but really, how did Europeans justify the wholesale subjugation and exploitation of other peoples' land? I guess I'm thinking of the 19th century.

So I've always been told that my family, the Williams, are of Scotch Irish and Norman descent. Now, this probably stems from an over zealous family member trying to loop an ambiguous name to some kind of history (the Scotch Irish is a certainty, the Norman is what I'm referring to) and it seems almost impossible to find any concrete evidence regarding it, but still I'm curious. Did any Normans make it as far north as Scotland after William's invasion? Or are there any records of Normans settling in Scotland at all? Also worth mentioning that I'm American so that is why tracing the roots are a far out possibility. I'm more interested in Norman migration to Scotland as I've always thought of them scattering around England but not so much north of that.

Currently researching to create an information outlet regarding mental illness. Need to ensure there are no glaring omissions/interesting oddities. Obscure incidences of mental illness would also be interesting, but primarily examples of treatment. I understand this is an unclear subject. There's obviously blurry lines around what could be regarded as treatment or illness, and other obscuring factors. Nonetheless any help would be much appreciated.

I'm asking in the sense that in most cultures in the world, the paler your skin was, the prettier or more respected you were (e.g. in Asia, it meant you weren't out in a field all day).

I'm not asking if europeans were inherently better (which isn't what I think), but rather when they met the native Americans or Chinese, etc., that their white skin would've given them a distinct advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have had

I live in Eastern Kentucky, and there is so much backlash and digging in regarding progress and moving to new cleaner forms of energy as it is basically the only lucrative industry the area has.

I doubt this is a new phenomenon, so, historically, when, if at all, did contemporary industries fight against being phased out by new technologies?

Edit: typoes

I'm reading Lawrence in Arabia right now and the author spends time talking about Lawrence's trek through the middle east (or I suppose technically the near-east?) looking at crusade-era castles to try and determine which way advancements in fortification technology migrated (I assume he went west to east, and at one of those ends he expected to find the most primitive fortifications?). The book talks about how Lawrence published it as his thesis at Yale Oxford and it received a lot of acclaim among academics for its original work, but never actually talks about what his conclusion was.

Does anyone know what Lawrence's conclusion about the migration of technology during the crusades was, and if it still holds up today?

Edit: Completely mixed up Yale and Oxford in my head