I'm asking because I'm writing a story that involves this as a plot point, but I don't want to have it if it's obviously implausible from a historical standpoint. And I'm not asking did they or why would they, but could they.

Thanks very much, I appreciate any help.

I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast outlining the opening stages of the first World War.

He talks a lot about the pressures Germany felt, being trapped between hostile foreign powers, and how this perceived threat informed the war plan and spurned urgent action when it seemed war was close.

Is there enough historical evidence from French and Russian sources that a historian might extrapolate what the reality of their intentions were?

Might the war have remained a local conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, even with the network of treaties, etc... because France and/or Russia had no real desired to invade or conquer German territory?

I know this is a "what if" kind of question.. I'm not really looking to know what would happen if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium.. but am really interested in whether or not modern historians have an agreed-upon opinion about whether or not German perceptions of threat were accurate or not.

Thanks!

I'm tasked with designing a survey course on the history of science up to the 18th century, and I'm pretty dissatisfied the standard Eurocentric narrative: Greeks-Alexandrians-Copernicus-Kepler-Galileo-Newton-etc.

But it's a 2nd year undergraduate class, so I don't think they're ready for a bunch of serious scholarly articles. Is there any good synthetic text that encompasses a slightly wider view? Like at least including China, India and the Islamic world?

How did Rome deal with citizenship for those barbarians who had been conquered. Could a gaul earn roman citizenship? Could a brtion or a thracian? How did this change as Rome moved from republic to empire and as the empire developed?

Also, what advantages would citizenship give? Could you vote in the senate elections? Could you run? Again how did this evolve as the empire did? If a gaul could vote, would he have to be in Rome or was there a postal/proxy voting system?

Sorry if this is too many questions in one! First question asked here, so let me know if I should split it.

My highschool textbook emphasized how remarkable it was that there was a peaceful transition of power between Adams and Jefferson.

Were there any contemporary fears that the transition would be delayed or somehow turn violent?

I am interested in learning about Queens and Empresses who played a heavy role in ruling, or ruled outright.

Besides the super famous ones like Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth, what other women can I read about, preferably before the 20th and 19th centuries.

How old am I? What should I expect when I get there? How is it decided which one I will attend and will it affect my future? How eager am I to attend and if there are alternatives, what are they?

I've always been taught in school that Jess Owens victory was a historical milestone, and showed the world how flawed the Nazi's views of racial superiority were, but did it really? The Germans still won the 1936 Olympic games by a pretty large margin.

What did the average contemporary German really think about Jesse and their country's performance?

What about the average contemporary American?

With the rampant U.S. propaganda against them and the supposed attack on the USS Maine, Spain was being portrayed very negatively on the world stage in the late 19th century. I'm sure Spain attempted to deny all of these charges but how did the rest of the world, Europe in particular, view Spain? Was the American propaganda successful in convincing not only the American people but other countries that the U.S. was in the right?

What did the Romans in 200 A.D. use as their guide to the gods and festivals? I'm struggling to find the genesis of their myths.

Since it's winter (well, in the northern hemisphere) and the air is dry, I'm getting shocked all the time by static electricity build-up. I understand (roughly) the physics of static electricity, and the kinds of materials that would cause static build-up. Some of those materials are probably only commonly available now, but many of those materials (such as fur, glass, perhaps some form of rubber) would have been common or at least known to ancients.

Surely someone shuffled his feet on a bear-skin rug, and then touched a metal bowl or statue or some such and received a tiny static electric shock. Did anyone notice? Did anyone record such a thing? If they did, what did they think was going on?

I know about Roman numbers, but was that the only one?

Were there ever any Japanese groups that sought action against the US in response to the two bombs dropped?

I am unsure if this is the right subreddit for this question but I am writing a paper on the use of twin and adoption studies to gauge the heritability of intelligence. I want to know 1) what was/were the purpose(s) of twin experiments by the Nazi's and Mengele, and 2) can any comparisons be made between the studies then and the studies now?

I'm sure by now most people have seen the @sochiproblems twitter and the myriad news articles about double toilets and doors without handles. Did the 1980 Olympics have similar issues in terms of preparedness? Since America wasn't there, there seems to be less available information. However, I've seen the Moscow Olympic Village and the ski jump downtown -- the infrastructure seems to have lasted well over the last three and a half decades.

It was well noted how Hitler viewed the English as a a perfect example of 'Aryan Imperialists' until they declared war, thereafter, he viewed them as Oppressive, German-hating plutocrats but was this the same views he held about the Irish, Scot's and Welsh.

In Hitlers view were these races seen as more,less or equally Aryan to the English? Did he see them as being oppressed by the English? Did he view them all as British? Did he believe they deserved to be oppressed ?

I recently visited the Globe, and we discussed how the unwashed masses would be the groundlings, and the richer you were the higher you sat in the audience. How was it that these upper-class people, particularly royals, were openly attending something so against the Protestant leadership?

Did Switzerland expect to be attacked, or join the war in some way?