My understanding is he was NOTimportant in the development of armoured warfare in the inter war period, that he claimed credit for the work of others and that his book is factually incorrect (ie lies) but that English speakers have a high opinion of him because they do not critical engage his work and because of his service during ww2? Is this true?

Does a medieval peasant even have an idea of what homosexuality is? How would my parents react? Would my experience be different if I had an education in theology or even an education at all? Would my experience be different if I was female? This is probably difficult to answer, since medieval peasants generally couldn’t write, but maybe we have other sources?

Last week i was watching Andrew Marr's History of the world , I remember the episode when he mentioned that Judaism should be credited for the idea of monotheism. I didn't suspect what he was saying at the time. However today I came upon a passage by Yuval Noah and he wrote that it might not be the case. Apparently the first clear evidence was from the "religious revolution" of Pharaoh Akhenaten around 1350 BC. and documents such as the " Mesha Stele " show that the religion of biblical Israel was not that much different from neighbouring kingdoms such as Moab.

I would love to read more about this but i barely know any of the civilizations around that time period and the geography of the neighbouring kingdoms is confusing , so if someone can give me some pointers on what to read and in what order and answer 2 questions briefly, i will be very thankful.

Q1 : what was the religious revolution that Pharaoh Akhenaten came with?

Q2 : If there are documents which prove that neighbouring kingdoms to biblical Israel had similar religions, to who then should we credit the idea of monotheism? Or is there even another group which deserves the credit?

Some people went looking for it in Iceland a few years ago. The theory states that it isn't actually a grail, but scrolls with the wisdom for eternal life. There was an Irish Monk settlement briefly in Iceland prior to the Vikings arriving there. The Monks may have taken some Christian treasures and hid them in Iceland, since it was uninhabited at the time and the Vikings kept raiding England, Scotland, Ireland and whatever other nations were on these islands at the time.

That's what I heard.

A lot of stories about WW2 focus on the European front, the Eastern front and the war on the Pacific but given that countries like France, Belgium, the Netherlands and even Germany were empires at the time, I don't think I heard any stories about how Nazi Germany governed or took control of the colonies that were overseas, or whether or not the colonies had any Resistance movements or even skirmishes or campaigns of their own to fight against the oppression of the Nazi rule

How the fuck was their insidious group not hunted and utterly destroyed by the global community after WW1 concluded?

That’s like if Hitler and his right hand men managed to escape from the consequences of WW2.

So recently I have become interested in WW 2 and decided to read actual books rather than only watching on tv. I have come across this book as it is eye-catching in the bookstore. I have just finished this book and my questions are: Are the facts in this book still holds today? It has been written in the 1960s and there might be new facts or disproved facts? I don't mean to offend or anything but as I understand it William Shirer is a Journalist by profession and I have found scholars who criticized the book on grounds that Shirer is a Journalist. This seems to me like gatekeeping, because I find the book rather good. But then of course I am not a scholar myself. Have I just wasted my time? or is this book really good for learning about the Third Reich? Lastly, I would be grateful for any suggestions on good books regarding this topic. I would prefer a book that specifically talks about military campaigns. Thanks!

A bit of an unconventional question, but hear me out. I read a lot of political philosophy and critical theory, and frequently encounter what I might call "historical arguments". These are arguments for a certain position based on appeal to historical trends, or on analysis of how some particular system/institution/etc. succeed or failed in a given historical context. I often feel completely unprepared, as a non-historian, to judge these arguments. The people making them are usually not historians themselves, and typically don't provide in-depth citations backing up their claims. I'm also aware of just how easy it is to radically misrepresent history to an unaware audience. As a non-history, what is my best line of approach in judging these arguments, or in evaluating the necessary research to judge them? What common pitfalls should I be on the lookout for? Basically, how do I recognize bad history?

Like the whole mega scale idea of growth and decline of civilizations. I’m a highschool student so not a full on historian but I couldn’t quite get how exactly a study of history is outdated? Like shouldn’t it be one of those important classical works like the Durants “story of civilization” ?

I'm reading this book about Joan of Arc (The Maid). Is it really true that before her, France can't win any battle against England? And did the war end after her time?

Also, do nobles who fought in war really have weapons with gems in it? Like, ax or swords with gemstones on handles or armor made of gold to signify status. -isn't it dumb because the captors would see you right away?

Examples contemporary to the revolution, I mean. In particular complaining that it was terrorism and that it wasn’t the way to make a change?

Hi all,

I think this is kind of an unusual question as it's not a history question exactly - but it's also a perfect question for historians.

A bit of background about myself - I am in my mid-30's and in the midst of what I would consider a very successful corporate career. I have an engineering PhD and am doing quite well at a big pharma company. I'm on a great trajectory but I've always had this gnawing feeling that I'm living the completely wrong professional life for myself. Perhaps it is purely a fantasy - but I have always been absolutely fascinated by ancient history (Roman/Jewish in particular). For a total amateur, I'd say I have far more knowledge on the topic than your average person - but nothing at all by academic standards. I've read a ton in the area (for a hobbyist).

Ok, so here is the gist of my question. Financially, I am very comfortable and I'm likely to be in a position in the next 10 years where I can take a major pay cut and live just fine for the rest of my life. Let's say I hypothetically wanted to explore a path where I devote 2-3 hours a day to deliberately focusing on building the expertise of a trained historian in some version of ancient history in Rome / ancient Judea. To be honest, I have no idea what the specifics of the topic would be, I'm just brainstorming.

The fantasy is that in 5-10 years I "retire" from my corporate career and do something else in history.

All that said - I am just looking for advise as to how think about this situation.

• How might I get started?
• is this at all realistic?
• What possible career paths could there down the road?
• Any other ways I should be thinking about this?

Thanks a lot! Really appreciate any thoughts on this.

Most movies and tv shows display the American civil war being fought with muskets with large bayonets. There were repeaters at the time so surely they would be used to a much larger scale than muskets no? With one man being able to carry the fire power of 12? And if this is the case why did hollywood choose the musket as the primary weapon in the war?

From what I have been able to gather, most historical accounts of their friendship seem to be the usual obliviousness of homosexuality.

“They were such great Friends. Such a pity neither of them ever married. Luckily they had each other’s friendship till the end. Such great friends they were indeed.”

Both Smith and Hume had much of their personal writings destroyed.

The theory of their homosexuality is fairly modern I believe. When did this theory first become popularized, and how credible is it?

In the context of the time period, it seems super strange to me: twin engine, Army Air Corps, in the Pacific, not an aircraft in higher numbers like the Corsair or Wildcat/Hellcat, the time period in which it was designed etc.

I do know that the Army had the P39 and also the P40, which I cannot comment on in terms of numbers, effectiveness, timeline etc. But I do know that the P40 was used in defense of China before the USA was "officially" at war. I could be completely wrong though!

​

Thank you so much! I always love learning new information and this topic is very fascinating.

I was curious to know if the indigenous american societies from the North to the South of the western hemisphere had discovered/learned mathematics, up to what advanced degree and finally, how did they employ it in the real world?

I know Caligula is a nickname, and not his real name. Which brings up another question:

Would people have called him by his real name or by his nickname "Caligula"?

It's a bit of a small question for this subreddit but I'm curious to know the answer.

: )

Hello, so I watched the Hoover Institue's interview of Douglas Murray, whom I had heard of before but never really looked into nor did I read any of works. But having done so now and rewatched the interview, I somehow cannot help but be skeptical of him.
So here's my question, how true is it that post WW-I, Europeans have gradually lost their identity due to their past, and try to make up for it by specious gestures of humanitariasim? Follow up question, is it also accurate that the formation of the EU was somehow an attempt by the Europeans to collude their identity as dominators and somehow "clean off" their past?

Good afternoon:

I recently consumed 3 books by Craig L. Symonds (The Battle of Midway, World War II at Sea, and Neptune) and deeply enjoyed them. I learned a lot about the mechanics and logistics of the naval action during WWII that I didn't know before.

I'd really like to learn some more, but I'd rather not just read a bunch of books that cover the same events over and over. Are their well-regarded authors who have focused on lesser-known (or lesser-covered) naval topics?