I know prior to the sino-Japanese wars and WW2 that China was a big trader with Europe and the US, but it was constantly being bullied by them. After the war the Japanese threat left and they allied with Russia, becoming a world power for the first time ever. Is the fall of Japan a direct correlation or coincidence

Was there a reason for Europe to collectively say that Napoleon had to go other than that he was just too powerful or was there some sort of international law that he broke? It just seems like kind of a mean thing to me I guess.

I've always seen the Declaration used in modern times as key principles that the country was founded on, but also have heard things pointed out like "All Men created equal" was a hollow phrase as there were plenty of people that weren't considered to be equal.

Have there been any historians who viewed the Declaration through the prism of it primarily being a "call to arms" kind of document? I wouldn't doubt some of its intention was to inspire people to rise up and fight, but does anyone think that was its primary purpose rather than some higher principled foundation for a new democracy?

I've read accounts that state clearly that naval battles were held in the Colosseum, but I also know that there were substructures beneath the floor of the arena that allowed for the dramatic entrance of animals, people, and stage sets via trap doors. Can anyone enlighten me how it's possible that the building was watertight enough to actually flood and stage naval battles? I'm feeling that these stories are exaggerated or apocryphal and perhaps the naval battles were just simulated.

Just a thought.

Have special machines been built to move massive objects like the size of the statue of liberty or a glacier, etc?

Also. I'm not sure which subreddit to submit this question to, or how to properly word it.

This was an experience that very much left him scarred as a 19 year old in Vietnam. I'm aware this war apparently had a high incident of occurrence but is this something that's consistently happened through time?

Apologies if this does not conform to the subreddit's rules.

I'm beginning to research various topics related to major economical and social reforms and Ataturk is one of the historical figures i'm interested in. In all honesty I know very little about him and of Turkey's post WWI history but a number of my readings have pointed me towards all the changes Turkey went through after the Ottoman empire and how Kemal was the key figure on all of it.

I wanted to see if anyone could point me into some good introductory literature about the topic. I'm not so much interested in a biography about him as much as I'm on what he and his administration did to identify the areas that needed reform, getting the people's support, dealing with religious opposition to creating a secular state...

Again, thanks and sorry if this isn't the right place

When and how did ancient people purify their water? Without microscopes to see bacteria in water, how did they know it needed to be purified? What methods were used? (I'm asking this watching the latest Good Eats, Water Works.) Thank you!

As the title states, I'm looking for iconic photograph in which the subject is walking away from the camera. The time period or location do not matter. Anybody have any ideas?

Additional, related questions: How did Palestinians distinguish themselves from their fellow Arabs while under occupation? Were they satisfied living under Egyptian/Jordanian rule?

What happened with the fallout? Did people flee urban centres? Did cities shut down or did people's daily lives continue as normal as possible?

(Where "Roman Empire" = "Western Roman Empire" for brevity)

In the modern view of things, we basically take it for granted that the Roman Empire was "in decline" for a few hundred years or so, before it eventually fell (and even the fall itself was a long, drawn-out process). I'm curious what the people in Rome itself thought about the state of their Empire, and whether they perceived a decline.

There were some events going on that would seem, on their face, to be objective evidence of instability--political turnover, economic and food supply issues, loss of territory at several points. There were also more subjective issues that nonetheless have been pointed as signs of decline as well--shifts in religion, cultural attitudes, swings of power between different groups, reorganization of beaucracies, etc.

Was the decline of Rome something that was acknowledged or realized at the time, or is it entirely a construction of hindsight? Did people think that their generation was better-performing or better-off than the previous ones? Did they think that the Empire itself was on an upwards trajectory, or downwards, or in a steady-state? Did they think that they were in a temporary state of instability, but they would soon return to, or surpass, the former glory of the Roman state of the classical period? Did people even notice at the time trends that we now take for fact?

teenage peasant girl given command of a nation's army in a time of major war, and winds up winning without military experience. Is there much let out of the legend that a historian of the period can enlighten me on?

I was wondering this when reading The American Civil War by John Keegan. In it he mentions that the Union had almost all of the naval power because of the location of where the ships were docked at the onset of hostilities. Was this planned, or just happy coincidence? Did the Union build forts or strategic outposts in the event of civil war?

I keep reading about Manchuria being occupied by other countries without much detail, but what countries have occupied it and why?

I heard somewhere that the weapon of choice for priests was the mace as it did not draw blood, is there any credible backing for this statement?

The war raged for 4 years, claiming the lives of millions of people and all for nothing really. World War One, to me at least, seems like a war that was completely unjustifiable and the Generals of both sides seemed very incompetent and ruthless with their own men. They didn't seem to give a damn about the pawn sitting in the trenches surrounded by death, waiting to die and starving. So was WW1 pointless in your opinion?

Can someone please explain me how did it happen? What were the reasons? What was the driving force for it to be proclaimed? I am intrested in that topic, but I do not know a lot about it and I know this is the best subreddit to get valuable information about that question!