u/Forsaken_Champion722

When looking at Russia in the years before WW1, I see two competing developments. On the one hand, Russia had finally joined the industrial age, and its economy was growing by leaps and bounds. Given its population and geographic size, it looked like it would eventually surpass the rest of Europe.

On the other hand, the early 20th century was also when nationalism had started to take root in eastern Europe. There would have been independence movements growing in the western regions of the Russian empire, and these were some of the most economically productive parts of the empire.

In OTL, the Soviets were able to turn some of these lands into Soviet republics, and install puppet governments in others. However, there was a different dynamic at play. The Soviets forged alliances with communists in these countries, and in some cases allowed the nationalist factions of these countries to suffer much greater losses against the Germans in WW2.

Many would argue that the Soviet government typically favored the interests of Russia over other areas. Nonetheless, they at least tried to present an image of multinationalism, and some powerful Soviet politicians were not Russian, the most obvious example being Stalin.

So, getting back to my original questions, would Czarist Russia have gone on to become a massive economic and military juggernaut, or would it have become an unstable empire, having to constantly deal with independence movements?

Nowadays, children in France learn a standardized version of French, children in Germany learn a standardized version of German, etc. However, in the middle ages, there was not much standardization of languages. People in northern France might speak a very different version of French than people southern France. In the modern era, there was a move towards the standardizations of language, but what was it like before then?

How far could someone in the middle ages travel and still be able to communicate with people? Could someone from London have a conversation with someone from northern England? Could someone from Munich have a conversation with someone from Hamburg?

Medieval Europe spans a period of a thousand years, so obviously there would be variations in how people lived in different times and places. Nonetheless, it does seem as though there would have been times and places where peasants (who were often serfs), lived lives of perpetual drudgery, with little opportunity for travel.

A common image of medieval peasants' life is that they would marry and start having children shortly after reaching puberty. They would spend the rest of their lives farming the land of a local nobleman, would never learn to read, and would never travel more than a few miles from home. I know it wasn't always like that, but for many it was, and I don't see how someone in that situation would have the time or resources to make a long journey across the continent.

A quick web search indicates that pilgrimages were most common from the 11th to 13th centuries. That makes sense, because that was a time of relative prosperity in Europe, as well as a time in which the restrictions of serfdom seemed to be on the way out. Nonetheless, there were pilgrimages at other times in the middle ages as well.

How did medieval peasants have the time and resources for these pilgrimages? Even in prosperous times, wouldn't the obligations to family and community make it prohibitively costly? Did nobles allow their serfs to go on these pilgrimages?

I realize that these are somewhat open ended questions, but I would appreciate any insights. In addition, I know that the pilgrimage is an even more important part of the Islamic faith, so feel free to talk about that and other religions' pilgrimages as well.

From what I can tell, the shah was not an altogether evil man, but one completely lacking in charisma. Since he didn't have the people's love, he had to rely on fear to stay in power. Western governments sometimes pressured him into reforms, but when he did this it simply emboldened his enemies, and he would go back on the reforms.

By the late seventies, the shah was in poor health, and his son was too young to take his place. He had failed to designate a successor, and had left his allies in the Iranian government without any structure by which they could continue his policies.

Is it possible that a better leader could have averted the revolution? What would middle eastern politics look like today?