I’m a history major in university and I love learning about nearly all points in history, I would love to become a historian someday. But I often wonder if someone were to ask me, “What does a historian contribute to society?” Or “How is studying history useful to society today?”, I don’t know what I would say. I was hoping maybe you guys could give me your thoughts on why historians are important to society.

if they didn´t used any, i´d be interested in hearing about some allucinogics used in belic confrontations from before than WWII, thanks!

As the title says... Interested in fully diving into the history of these people .... their legacy, origins, the change they underwent on their way from central asia to europe etc...

Around 1 AD, it was still mostly occupied by semi-nomadic tribes. When did major towns start to appear, and why?

Pretty much the title. Were civilians in the axis powers demoralized by carpet bombing campaigns and what did civilians in the allied nations think of these campaigns? Or did allied civilians even know the extent of the bombings?

I was reading up on the Age of Exploration and I wondered what Europeans thought about the wildlife they encountered on their expeditions. Are there any accounts of the first Europeans to come across exotic animals like jaguars and orangutans? What about animals like white tail deer and gray wolves that seem so similar to their European counterparts?

I know there is plenty of literature on this topic, but I can't seem to get a clear picture of my question (maybe there is none).

My understanding is the concept of a unified "England" existed before the Norman invasion in 1066, but much of English history attributes the Norman invasion to the beginning of a unified England's history, especially regarding the monarchy. How do the English square their Anglo-Saxon heritage, and vision of a unified "England," with the fact that the Normans were actually the ones to accomplish this? Couldn't it be viewed as a final victory of the "Northmen" over "England"? When did [Anglo-Saxon] "England" accept that the Normans were their own history, as opposed the invaders that took their lands?

Forgive me for being naive, but I’m curious as to when the modern view of marriage being about love and relationship began becoming the mainstream purpose. Or has that typically been the predominant reason, with the trading aspect being solely oriented to specific cultures or nobles/royalty?

Looking at other revolutions that promised similar ideas of peace freedom equality.

The French revolution. The English civilwar/revolution. The Russian revolution.

All of them started ostensibly started as popular uprisings and they all ended in some degree of dictatorship. Except the American revolution.

What is the proper terminology to reference the time period between 600 A.D. (roughly the emergence of Islam) and 1100 A.D. with regards to the Muslim world? The timeline that roughly coincides with the rise of Islam and the beginning of the Crusades. Also, is using these two events considered a correct approximate historical division?

The Ottoman Empire began in 1299 so I believe it would be incorrect to refer to the centuries of Islamic rule throughout the Middle East prior to this as "Ottoman". Plus for reasons of history I'm not super clear on, I'm fairly certain "lumping" Turks with Arabs is historically inaccurate [and probably really p*ss both groups off ?]. I understand that the Islamic world wasn't united, you have the various dynasties and Caliphates throughout the Levant and greater Middle East (i.e., Egypt, Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Persia).

If someone with a deeper understanding of this subject would be so kind as to clarify or reply with a link to any useful papers on this subject. I would greatly appreciate it!

Why I want to know this or "Context": I'm writing about the technological advancements in distilling and utilizing hydrocarbons during this period which is during the "golden age" of achievement and advancement by Islamic scientists.

I'm not trying to cause any offense and if in asking this question I unintentionally/unknowingly used controversial phrasing I apologize, please bring any mistake to my attention. I am aware that this might be a dumb question I'm asking. My background is in engineering and my intent is to be historically correct. I'm writing for an international audience. Writing about history, even in a technical context, can be touchy.

I fully admit to being lacking in my history of this time period/region. When it comes to writing about European scholars/writers/monks, this research has been easy. When finding something some guy Thomas of Benersi wrote in ~800 A.D. in France, I can place that easily. When it comes to Arab writers, it's harder: If I find something written by Ibn-Quar in Syria in ~800 A.D., I don't track it as well. If you've read this far into my post, may a recommendation for a good history to read?

Merchant ships, whaling ships, or navy ships, I imagine many sailors expended a large number of calories a day. What was their diet? What would the average sailor look like? How “fit” were they?

As I understand it, containment was enacted as a response to domino theory which posited that if one area went to communism, so would its neighbors, How big, if any, did a role containment play in stopping the spread of communism and the eventual collapse of the soviet union?

I want to learn about how US politics got to the way it is today. Is there a certain time period I should start at? Woodrow Wilson to present? FDR to present? What books do you recommend?

I don't mean them sending a message to the US saying our condolences. Like what internally was going on? Did they fear one of their agents pulled off the assassination? Where they scared of America attacking in retaliation for something they didn't order? Etc.

Were there any other motivations, like looting and gaining lordship over new lands? And even then, was it even that good, or was the potential loot and lands exaggerated before they set off? I know people were more religious in the past, but to leave your entire lives behind en-masse? C'mon.

So today I drove through Stamford Bridge. I noticed that there was a signpost explaining about a battle in 1066 and proceeded to read up a bit about it. Later I went to a pub in the village (town?) and on the wall was a map of England from the year 1060. There were few towns ‘up north’ but Stamford Bridge was labelled as one of them. My question is why there? Ok there’s the river, but it’s not on the coast or near an accessible port (I don’t think). How did this bunch of fields in Yorkshire end up being the site of a significant battle and a significant place at all. Any more info on the battle would also gratefully received. Thank you!