I was playing the legendary Oregon Trail for the first time and boy it is hard. The trail is full of disease, crossing a river can go very wrong and the food is very limited.

The game is set on 1848. Did the real Oregon Trail posed such dangers or is it exagerated by the game to make it harder? Did "many wagons fail to make it to Oregon"? (extracted from the game itself)

If it was so dangerous, why many people risked their lives traveling it? I get it from the Mormons fleeing religious persecution but the characters of the game are profesionals (you can even select a banker and a doctor) and had savings. Why traveling the trail and not investing in a business or in a factory?

Hi, I hope this sort of question is allowed. It doesn’t seem to be against any rules as far as I can tell. It seems like the best place to ask, being that I’m sure there’s probably a good bit of people in here with Masters and PhD’s in history and each once you get to that level, it seems things such as admissions start to vary by specific subject.

I graduated undergrad with a BA in history. I’ve come to love history and would love to study history at a higher academic level with hopes of possibly becoming a professor. My overall GPA wasn’t so great, at least not good enough to get into grad school where I was and wanted to stay. Instead, I’m currently doing a MS in Integrated Marketing Communications but would love to go back and study history at some point in the near-ish future. I think it would be nice to not deal with a masters in history and go straight into a PhD, but I don’t know the possibilities, logistics, and likelihood of that.

I’d say I had some good connections with a couple of my history professors, but I don’t know if those would be good enough to mention a potential PhD sponsorship/mentorship down the road. I have a fair amount of research experience, but I understand going through a masters in history provides a lot more research experience.

Thanks in advance!

When I google what the old Slavic language was it comes up as Church Slavonic and that it’s from the 15th century but ik that the first Serbian kingdom was in existence at the time of the late 8th century under the rule of prince viseslav but what did they speak back then if the oldest slavic language was Church Slavonic?

It had the proper conditions for one such as a large, disgruntled working class and a capitalist economy that could care less for the well being of the working class. Why did the Socialist movement fail where in Western Europe it became a viable force in several countries?

We know Jesus was a real person, due to the ample references made about him even from non-religions historians of around that time. But how much of his story in the Bible is backed by historical evidence - very much? Very little? What about people who knew him directly (his parents) is there any historical evidence to show who they may have actually been? And, lastly... what is the general consensus (if there is one) among non-religious historians about who Jesus was, when viewed as a man and not the Son of God. Ex: A religious fanatic? Where was his biological father? Was a really a carpenter?

Why did the late Roman Army need to forcibly conscript recruits rather than having citizens volunteer for service? There is even mention of people mutilating themselves so as escape conscription. Was it because it paid less to be a soldier? Or was it because the Roman people had gone soft? Was Christianity a factor? Or was it because soldiering was considered a death sentence?

In Chapter 2 of Andrew Roberts' "Napoleon the Great" it is written "It was very rare to be able to repair guns that had had metal spikes hammered into their firing mechanisms, let alone quickly". The setting is the siege of Toulon, 1793.

From what I have read, spiking guns in this way was often a favourable method of deactivating guns because of its reversible nature. Nowhere else have I seen it mentioned that repair was very rarely possible.

To what extent is it true that spiked cannon could very rarely be repaired?

I've heard that the Soviet strategy was basically "chuck men and equipment at the enemy til they inevitably get overrun", but how well did that tactic fare back home? Did it create a lot of anti-war sentiment? Did pyrrhic victories (if there were any) cause people to try convincing the government to sue for peace? How did the Soviets manage it?

I've been considering the cases of Singapore and Hong Kong, two cities which share a lot of historical and current similarities.

After the Second World War, the British resumed rule over Singapore, but with self-government and independence as eventual objectives. This culminated in Singapore's independence from the British Empire and failed merged with Malaysia in 1963.

On the other hand, while the post-war period in Hong Kong brought democratic reforms and economic development, there seems to have been no talk of self-government and/or independence.

Does anyone know why this might have been the case? What were the major difference between the two cities that lead to Hong Kong staying British until the 1990s?

Through my random snippets of history classes in primary and secondary school, I remember hearing that Japan closed off all trade with foreign nations until America forced its way in.

I also heard that Holland was still allowed to trade. My question is why was trade blocked in the first place. Why were Holland still allowed to trade? And what influences did the two nations take from each other (culturally and technologically)?

I know the mongols raped and pillaged across asia and europe, but wouldn't Alexander's army have done the exact same thing? Barbaric violence was common, so why view Alexander as great and Genghis evil when he accomplished more? I've heard some people say it's due to racist portrayals of asian peoples compared to western europeans.

I know that there were quite a few Italic languages spoken in Italy, as well as Etruscan and Greek. I read that Faliscan for instance was spoken until about 150 BC. That made me wonder, for how long did these different languages persist, and at what point did Italic peoples adopt Latin as their native languages as well as identifying with "Roman-ness"?

I know they've traded with the Middle East, from what I understand they've encountered Black Africans, further down South. But have they ever interacted with Egyptians to any capacity?

Did those people just go home, or their birth countries?

In my specific case, the museum in question was in Canada's Lost Villages, flooded when a dam was built in 1958 for the St. Lawrence Seaway. The item in question is a family heirloom of minor historical significance from the early 1800s that was donated (obviously prior to that time).

I'd like to be able to show it to my son - and maybe even see about reclaiming it if it is of low enough value to whichever institution has it currently. I assume there's some kind of protocol for dispersing items from a museum that is closing, but I have no idea where to even start looking.

Anyone read it? Or just have an axe to grind with the author?

I just started reading this and Scott says his aim is to summarize the current consensus, similar to Mann's 1491. But Scott also seems to have a strongly anarchist perspective, which lines up with the tone of his conclusions (as far as I can tell so far, that the early city-states were more like forced-labor camps than people congregating to raise their own standard of living).

How far do historians back him up, and how big a grain of salt should I be taking this with?

Why do we teach that the nuclear bombs were 100% necessary when new documents have come out that proves that argument is iffy at best.

Hello,

I have a few questions about the city of Jerusalem and the crusades

So what I often get confused on is who held Jerusalem in the first crusade?

I heard a few of my friends debate who held it first and who started the crusades and I honestly have absolutely no clue on anything they been saying.

So I know the Roman empire held the city for a bit but obviously the crusades are long after that.

My friend was making a point that the christians held the city first before the Romans became Catholic and they where holding the city and by technicality they had it before the muslims did.

So I’m curious on who exactly started the crusades? and who held the city first?

I don’t really want to ask my friends as I’d get different answers depending on who I ask

This is from a national textbook about the history of religion in the uk. This seems very wrong to me but perhaps I am mistaken. Is there any evidence that any medieval theologians ever viewed medical practise and the curing of diseases as sinful?