What was the fate of these ideals? I know after the French Revolution, there was a period of reactionary conservatism throughout Europe, up until around 1848, when nationalism, imperialism, and a focus on industrialization took hold, but it seems like the rights of the individual took a temporary step aside, as industrialization and capitalism became the name of the game. What was their role, if any, in WWI, when men readily fought for their respective nations at the beginning, and how did they persist through the disillusionment that came at the tail end of the war?

My history professor told my class that our ability to understand and answer blockbuster question such as this one would be on our final, although not this one in particular; so really, I'm asking for guidance in which direction I should focus my efforts to effectively answer a similar question.

Were people still going to work and to school? Were shops open? I understand that it probably depended on where exactly and I would like to understand what those differences were.

I've heard Ancient Athenian democracy was more succesful because it empowered it's citizens to work harder(because they cared) but what are some examples of this? Battle of Marathon?

I have two issues here: did it become a democracy before or after the Articles of Confederation? Some say that democracy was born when the America seceded from the British. Others say that not until the constitution. Some say that it wasn't until african americans and women could vote.

Secondly, this question is often deflected with 'America is not a democracy, it's a republic'. Regardless, for the purposes of this question, I'm assuming America's a liberal democracy.

Basically, when did the US become a "world power," or when did the US start to have a large influence on world affairs? Also, why did it happen when it did?

As an Indian, I have a fascination with Pakistan. I have read articles by several Pakistani experts, which claim that Jinnah wanted Sharia to be implemented or that he wanted a secular democracy or some other variant. On talk shows, this question frequently leads to violent arguments.

Given that nowadays, all actors in the Pakistani politics, wether the established political parties or Pakistani Taliban or the Pakistani elite, claim their views to be consistent with Jinnah's vision, what exactly was Jinnah's vision for Pakistan?

EDIT : Fixed grammer.

The Mongolian army such at it was lead by Genghis Kahn in the 13th century appeared rather unstoppable. On flat open terrain, a large force of cavalry archers equipped with the recurve bow destroyed all opposition from Asia to central Europe. In my understanding, the Mongolian empire splinted do to succession strife and ultimately fell due to political and military mismanagement rather than a weakness in the Mongolian war tactic.

So my question is: aside from beating them at their own game, how could a medieval army stop the Mongolians? Was there anything short of sophisticated gunpowder weapons that could defeat them on open terrain?

My first thought would be that the advent of stronger plate armor could make the Mongolian bows obsolete, but then again they will still have the mobility advantage.

Edit: Why did it become so common?

My mind went straight "wut" when he said this.

Once the United States made it why did they stop? I would have thought at that point that they had to get there or admit defeat.

Why has Northern Ireland had more of a history of violent conflict in the last few decades than Scotland, Wales, or Quebec, even though those last three have all had sometimes-acrimonious nationalist disputes?

What were the first elections after the act like?

and why didn't this satisfy the people who were fighting for freedom given this actually grants them representative form of government?

What motivated them to strive for "greater" independence?

i find it interesting that what are now inbred royals stem from actual fighting nobles who earned their prestige on the battlefield.

Basically I mean were there any conspiracy theories like there are on the JFK assassination, Sept 11th, and so on?

I know that Kublai Khan was fond of Chinese culture, but was he aware that he will go down in history as the Chinese emperor who founded a new Chinese dynasty rather than the Mongol Khan who assimilated China into the Mongol Empire?

I'm curious as to if there are any historical texts which describes the relationship between the Anglo-Saxons and their new masters. Were they resented? Were they accepted? Similarly, did the Normans regard the Anglo-Saxons as inferior and barbaric?

And ultimately, when did the line between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Norman" disappear to make way for an "English" identity?

Was it something that slowly built up over time? Was it all at once? Were people talking seriously about revolution 20 years in advance, or would such ideas have been dismissed as ridiculous?

I'm interested in the same for other major revolutions as well, if someone feels more qualified to answer on those fronts.

TIL that Deary is a very popular author. He has a series called Horrible Histories. I never heard about this series before.

When asked about the radical undertones of his work, he told the newspaper: “That’s the way snaky propagandists do it. I’m poisoning the minds of children…yes!” (telegraph.co.uk)

Terry Deary has said of historians: "They are nearly as seedy and devious as politicians..They pick on a particular angle and select the facts to prove their case and make a name for themselves... They don’t write objective history... Eventually you can see through them all. They all come with a twist." (wiki)