Since the Old Testanent is presented as being at least older than the first historians such as Herodotos and historical methodology, should it not be seen as an accurate historical source by itself excluding the prooven historical innacuracies?

How is the Bible viewed by historians as a source?

How should historical analysis and methodology influence how we see the Bible?

I'm sorry if this is a very basic question.

As someone from the UK this is a statement I've heard regularly repeated on the internet and in the media but have never heard this substantiated or debated by subject experts. How is the British museum's vast collection of artefacts viewed by academia? Is there a problem with attitudes towards this subject in academia?

The only counterarguments i've ever heard to this point have not really held water. "These artefacts are much safer in Britain" - whilst proven to be true, Britain is usually the originator of the destabilised regions. Iraq being a prime example of irreplaceable artefacts being destroyed, but the British empire's involvement has played a part in Iraq's current instability.

I must confess that the British museum is one of my favourite places in the world so I'd like to think that I'm not helping perpetuate neo colonial attitudes towards history.

I wasn't able to find a thread that covered this topic, but if anyone could link one I'd be grateful - thanks!

How did the United States determine to stop use a gold standard, why, and how does valuing a non commodity backed currency even work? Was this a beneficent plan or a scheme to help a certain group?

I am looking for first, or at best, secondhand accounts of what is listed in the OP, including any and all art made by the European settlers depicting what the 15th and 16th century Natives looked like, what the Natives' homes looked like, what the Settlers' homes and settlements looked like, and artwoorks from that time period of early America's natural terrain. Maps made by people like John White and John Smith etc would also be immensely appreciated.

Information about the various Native tribes encountered, and the complex relationships of both alliances and hostility they had with them would be fascinating, any information that could be gleaned on their various cultures and languages as well.

Anything about the first impressions of America's massive forests or natural flora and fauna would be appreciated.

I do not want any works with a political slant, please.

I would also like to read later sources that give an idea as to what daily life, for example, in the Lost Colony would've been like, or in Jamestown in the period prior to the English Civil War - what the dress, speech and attitudes would've been like for your average Colonist (not one of the big money men who were only interested in exploitation).

Basically, imagine I am a time traveler preparing a trip back to 1585-1640 era English Colonial America in both the North Carolina, Chesapeake and; any and all resources I could use would be EXTREMELY appreciated.

I've heard/read both Zinn and Chomsky mention this but would like more specific info. I'd also love any reading material on this subject, sorry if this doesn't quite fit this subreddits purview. FYI i'm specifically seeking answers regarding about actions taken in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

Thanks so much!

And by that I mean: much of what we know about Vikings is thanks to external accounts and what we can gather from archaeological evidence, however, we have thousands of pages of lore involving the relationships each deity had with each other, their conflicts, wars among gods and tons of other very specific facts about the mythology for a group of people that wrote almost nothing.

So then, how is it that we can know so much about their heroes and deities and so little about their actual history?

When we talk about these two lands we consider them as two countries but Austria was a Grand Duchy which means it CAN be a part of a Kingdom and Hungary was already a Kingdom. Why didn't Habsburgs just take the title of Kings of Hungary and made Duchy of Austria a part of it ? Why did they hold these two countries separately ? They could've unite them making a one big kingdom instead of two separate countries. I mean I understand it if nobles of Hungary resist to be a part of Austria since they already are a Kingdom but if Austria became a duchy under Hungary it would make sense for the nobles of Austria since they are just a Grand Duchy.

In modern mathematical textbooks, you often find a theorem or formula which are attributed to the Ancient Greeks for first developing it (or other ancient civilizations). However, I can't help but wonder how people in Classical Eras actually talked to each other about mathematics, since the vast majority of terminology or symbols we use were only developed in the last 300 years.

For example, we know that Pythagoras of Samos was the one to propose the theorem we now express as "a^(2) + b^(2) = c^(2)", which was first documented by Euclid of Alexandria (if I recall correctly). However, as far as I know the use of letters for variables didn't start until the Muslim Golden Age, and symbols for "+" and "=" were developed in the Renaissance. So how is the Pythagorean Theorem actually represented in Ancient Greek Manuscripts? How would Classical mathematicians share ideas or solve equations without any of the symbols or Algebraic expressions we have today?

I've seen this action portrayed in some books and movies, where a medieval Lord would just sit in his/her throne room and one by one listen to their citizens complaints directly. They would then pass judgement or settle disputes right then and there, whenever the need arose. Was this kind of direct face to face ruling common in medieval Europe?

My understanding is that the SA is the precursor to the SS and that they were the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, and the Gestapo were secret police? I'm not quite sure though.

Like did people compare others to Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Caligula, Nero, etc.? Was there any particular people who were clearly the most common choice to represent evil?

I came across “From Viking Stronghold to Christain Kingdom: State formation in Norway” by Sverre Bagge. I really enjoy the approach he takes in analyzing this particular topic, looking at the external and internal factors along with geographical factors etc. More of a materialist conception of history than I’ve been able to find and I’ve found some extremely useful concepts so far reading this book.

Are there any good recommendations for this kind of materialist approach to state formation in other regions like Germany, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, China etc. really any region. I’m more interested in early periods around the 10th century, but anything is good.

I know it’s a broad question, I’m really curious in state formation and want to learn more on how it developed around the world so anything to get me in that direction is useful!

In South African history the Mfecane is said to be a period of extreme instability in the early 19th century that caused massive depopulation and movement of people throughout the region, particularly as a result of Zulu expansion. I've heard that the concept of the Mfecane was actually an Apartheid era construct, used to justify the expansion of White Settlers into large parts of South Africa under the logic that these areas were abandoned by the native population who essentially self destructed, and also to suggest that the Native South African population was incapable of living in peace and that White rule was necessary to bring peace and stability. If there was any kind of instability in South Africa at the time it was the result of European settler expansion as well as slave raids done at the behest of colonial powers like the Portuguese that was the true driving force behind warfare and instability.

Is this true?

So, checking out the history of the Swahili and ancient Phoenician Peryplus, I realized that while there was quite an active trade with ports in the Eastern African coast, there was virtually none on the Western side of the continent.

Why is that? Was the geography particularly dangerous for boats at the time?

I could of course be wrong, but I’m not aware of it being done before or since. What was it about this particular war that seemed ideal for trench warfare, and what were the strategic goals for fighting in this way?

Saw this mentioned in a Christopher Hitchens video and was curious. Thanks for your time!

My parents (France) are turning into slavery apologists and arguing that transatlantic slavery was no different/no worse than other historical accounts. I believe the European slave trade of the time was heavily industrialized / based on racial rhetoric and market convenience - whereas "historical" slavery tended somewhat more toward an assimilation process and was based on a victor/conquered relationship. In my mind European slavery is unprecedented in scale and purpose. Is this correct? Help me get a better insight/build a stronger case.

I can understand how sending one's daughter away to live with another noble house would discourage one from attacking said house, out of fear for one's daughter's safety. What I don't understand is what would prevent the house into which the daughter married from acting as the aggressor.

While a child produced by the marriage might have a rightful claim to both houses' holdings (assuming, presumably, that the groom was the firstborn son and the bride didn't have an older brother with children of his own), any benefit realized therefrom probably wouldn't be enjoyed by the people actually responsible for arranging the marriage. Did nobles really feel so strong a sense of obligation towards their houses and heirs not yet born as for the possibility of future benefit to the current ruler's descendants to be enough to prevent conflict?