I'm currently studying for comprehensive exams for my PhD and while I'm very comfortable with colonial America to the end of Reconstruction, the 20th century is not my forte, particularly the social and political aspects of the early 20th century outside of the context of American Civil Rights. Any suggestions regarding the best authors to read and the most current research in this era would be very helpful. Thanks!

I'm thinking of somebody with no traceable claim to the throne or an imposter overthrowing the legitimate ruler and being crowned.

I've been doing some research into the Lambert Simnel rebellion, which could have conceivably achieved this, and it got me wondering.

I'm reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" and am struck by the relatively slow pacing of the novel. The story will diverge into various directions and random conversations will go one for page after page after page. I've noticed this with other novels of the period and have read statements saying that a novel like "Swann's Way" could never be written in modern times.

What are people's thoughts on how much this is related to a slower pace of life and less media intrusions or is it simply because of the way these novels were released - "The Count of Monte Cristo" it was released as a serial over several years I think and so there was maybe some incentive to stretch it out as long as it was bearable to do so?...

Any thoughts appreciated.

I've read this from several sources, but having a hard time verifying if it is true. Also, I was wondering if the interior walls of castles were typically whitewashed and/or painted, or more likely to be exposed stone. Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you.

I tried to do a research but couldn't find any info. I know humans started using fire widely approximately 125,000 years ago. But to be able to boil water, I guess, they needed the metals? Because it is unlikely that they gathered rocks with large empty volume inside.

And when they were able to boil water widely, what impacts it had on humanity? Cooking perhaps? Or when did they first notice, for example, it makes certain waters 'drinkable'? What are your thoughts?

I am reading the count of Monte Crisco, was Napoleon good or bad for France?

I have a few quesitons about Iranian nationalism:

1. Was it a major force behind the 1906 Constitutional Revolution?

2. Did it originally have a strong religious component i.e. did they define themselves as Persian-speaking Shi'as?

3. How did nationalism affect Iranians who spoke a different language? How did it affect Zoroastrians, Bahai's, Christians, Jews, and Sunnis? Did these groups sign on to a version of Iranian nationalism? Did Iranian nationalism exclude them or oppress them?

4. To what extent were the Pahlavi Shahs able to divorce nationalism from religious identity?

5. Did Iranian nationalism help Mossadegh gather support to nationalize AIOC's operations? Or did he rely on something else, like the support of socialists and communists?

6. Did nationalism play a role in the 1979 revolution? I sometimes encounter a narrative that Iranians, many of whom did incorporate religion into their identity, supported the revolution to gain a level of independence from the West/US. If this is true, does this mean there were competing nationalisms in Iran? The state-approved secular nationalism v. the nationalism of the everyday Iranian?

7. How ideologically pure were Iranian communists? Did separatists and communists in Iran employ nationalist rhetoric, or did they stick to socialist or communist rhetoric?

8. How ideologically pure were the religious leaders leading up to the revolution and in the years after? Did Khomeini and the rest stick to a purely Islamic rhetoric, or did they appeal to the peoples' identity as Iranians? During the Iran-Iraq war, did they only motivate people with religion, or did they cast the conflict as Iranians battling Western Imperialist-backed Arab invaders?

Since the Romans conquered the Greek states and the Greeks' military was based predominantly around phalanxes of pikemen, I want to understand how the Romans managed to subdue Greek armies.

I know that phalanxes were vulnerable in the flanks and the rear, but the Romans never really had much in the way of cavalry (did they?) and a Roman legionary is a heavy infantryman, trained to fight in formation. As such I wouldn't imagine that the legions were terribly manoeuvrable, so just how did the Romans defeat the Greek states, and render the phalanx obsolete in ancient warfare?

TL; DR - how does a man with a gladius beat a man with a pike?

I was pondering how ridiculously powerful our current communication networks are and was really trying to get a feel for what my life would be like without them. I live in Florida, my father lives in Washington DC, and the rest of my family lives in New Mexico.

I guess my question has a couple main facets and I would be interested in any answer concerning any of them.

1. Prior to westward expansion, what did the communication network look like and how effective was it.

2. How important was the Pony Express

3. How reliable and quick was the Pony Express (as in, how much was it utilized, was it only for particular routes, how fast would they do).

With the modernization of even today's postal system it is hard for me fathom sending a letter 100+ years ago.

Thanks for the help!

I heard this on NPR, the person speaking was a representative of Merriam Webster. He just sort of mentioned this fact off hand but I'm having a very hard time believing it's true.

Considering the South voted for him in the 1860 election, why was Davis selected to the presidency instead of Breckenridge? Was he ever truly considered for the position?