How did history change from Herodotus's methodology of writing down things he was told and noting whether they seemed plausible or not, to today's methodology of rigorous interrogation of the sources?

edit: add ...today's methodology of...

Based on my few trips to rural Vietnam our tour guides mentioned how some families bred dogs for consumption. Since most of canines had to be big to serve in the US Army, were many of them eaten once the war ended?

When The Divine Comedy was written in 1320, not only has it since become one of history's greatest work of fiction, but it was also the de-facto portrayal of Hell for fiction authors and Christian believers alike.

What I'm wondering is, was Divine Comedy's portrayal of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven considered accurate to the real thing by European Christians, or at least in line with what they thought of it at the time? Or was it thought of as entirely fictional, as one man's interpretation that strongly differs from truth?

How is race different from other types of group distinctions of others. When did it start, and how.? What about other forms of group discrimination and injustice. What about propaganda, communicable disease, resource scarcity, war and commerce in the origins of perceptions of "the other". How far back does this all go, to the origins of the current era concept of race. What about the notion that "race is a mental construct". What about people who claim, or say, "I dont see race..." ?

(new member, this must've been covered in part)

I was listening to Extra History’s Seminal Tragedy story about the time before the explosion of the cataclysmic First World War. They (the extra history guys) recounted that Kaiser Whilhem took a vacation on a boat for 3 weeks when Austria and Serbia were still trying not to go to war . Where did the Kaiser go ? What was Kaiser Whilhem doing ? Fishing ? Drinking ? Planning ?

By Lewis and Clark’s account the area was teeming with game and other food sources, why didn’t many Native Americans take advantage of this?

I am not a historian or an academic, I am just a layman with an average job (though I do write in my spare time), but I would like to think to think of myself as a student of history, who enjoys reading history and acquiring historical knowledge as part of my own self-education. Middle Eastern history is one of my interests, partially because it is frequently in the news and some aspects of it is related to what I write about.

One aspect where my knowledge is rather thin is the history of British & French imperialism in the region after the fall of the Ottoman empire & the establishments of the modern nation states that currently make up the region. This period is very important because it does somewhat set the stage for much of the problems the Middle East faces today. I'm less interested on Israel/Palestine because I have read books on the Balfour Declaration and its aftermath, but more on the other countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf states (even North African countries like Tunisia, Algeria & Libya would be satisfactory). My curiosity is based on wanting to know about the initial colonial occupations, the respective policies to these countries, how they 'managed' ethnic and confessional divisions, how did they deal with resistance, and later the support and influence over the regimes they erected after the occupations ended and the countries were formally granted independence.

I came across two books that looked interesting:

French Imperialism in Syria: 1927-1936 by Peter Shambrook (which is a study of French diplomatic papers related to the French imperial policies towards Syria. Looks fascinating as a piece of scholarship. I still want to read it, but not yet, as it looks rather deep for me at this stage, when I need to build up my knowledge and contextual understanding first)

Britain in Iraq: Contriving King and Country by Peter Sluggett

Are there any other books you would recommend on this aspect of Middle Eastern history, that are knowledgeable, but not too donnish and deep, at least for now?

After reading “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” I was surprised to learn the famous story of two children using a trail of breadcrumbs, finding a gingerbread house, and encountering a cannibalistic witch was attributed to two characters, Roland and Maybird, not Hansel and Grettel. The tale of Hansel and Grettel instead involves Hansel transforming into a fawn and evading being hunted by a king.

Why are modern renditions of Roland and Maybird’s story attributed to Hansel and Grettel instead of the original characters?

This is research for a novelette I’m writing so to give this question context, they would be traveling with as much speed as possible to deliver an urgent message while still using a ship big enough to handle possible combat.

In the show the Last Kingdom, the Anglo-Saxon priest Father Beocca gets legally married to a Dane named Thyra. It is to my understanding that priests are expected to be celibate. Are there any instances of this happening in the past, or is this just a creative liberty the show decided to take? Did Church doctrine used to be more lenient, or did some people just ignore it?

I have been listening to Chris Stewart’s “History of China” podcast and have noticed something that is conspicuously different from other ancient cultures I have studied. Repeatedly, the mother of the Emperor gained political power to match or exceed that of the Emperor. From Empresses Lü Zhi and Dou in the early Han, to Cixi at the end of the Imperial period, Imperial Consorts seem to come to prominence with a regularity not seen in the western contemporaries of China. What about the Imperial system made the rise of so many Empress Dowagers to positions of power and influence possible?

Where is Tolstoy pulling this from? And if true, how did Russians ride compared to, say, Italians?

I'm currently writing a video essay about fascism in my country, and what I heard during research is that the Japanese weren't just fascist but also completely racist during WW2, and seeing themselves as the superior Asian. Is this true?

Hi historians!

I looked through the FAQ and I didn't find any posts about this topic so here goes:

I have seen a few articles in the past saying that police departments in the US evolved from slave patrols. Is there any direct evidence that this is true?

Is there any record of a person(s) known to participate in slaves patrols later seen belonging to a proto-police service in a town or city?

If it is true how much evidence is there? Minimal? A decent amount? Tons?

I understand if this has to be removed cause I did something wrong or it's too controversial

I am referring to things like Plato's Republic or The Art of War. Any historical text for which the full original text cannot be found. Although full versions of these texts are available today and attributed to these authors, isn't there great uncertainty about whether the contents are correct? Do you just keep in the back of your mind that everything was actually from a copy by someone later in history, so there are likely a lot of inaccuracies?

Also when I want to talk about of these historical texts, should I use words like allegedly, supposedly, etc. because it's not certain the texts were by these people? Or are the modern copies generally accepted to be faithful reproductions of the old texts, so I should just use them as if they were factual? For example if I want to talk about a strategy in The Art of War, can I just say that since it's in the Art of War, the strategy must have been around in the 5th century BCE when the text was supposedly written?

I feel like everything is so uncertain, so I'm not sure with how much certainty I should talk about these things.

I came across something interesting in wikipedia recently, while commemorating a new statue for Gavrilo Princip (the assassin who kicked off the events that led to WW1) the President of Serbia said this: "Princip was a hero, a symbol of liberation ideas, tyrant-murderer, idea-holder of liberation from slavery, which spanned through Europe." To me, who lives in America where WW1 is generally remembered as kind of a catastrophe for humanity, this was kind of surprising.

Then I realized that the understanding of WW1 I have is primarily from the Western Front where there wasn't a lot of movement and the whole thing was kind of a grinding slog that didn't achieve much. In the Eastern Front however there was a lot of movement, fighting, and strategizing and the map changed a lot in the end giving rise to many new independent states. So my question is given how different Eastern Europe experienced WW1 does Eastern Europe have a much different understanding of the memory of WW1 than "the West"? If so how or in what way?

Edited for clarity

Hello all!

So, I've been wondering; what is the use of history in this series? What is the point of using this specific anglo-saxon history? Is there a point to prove?

Thanks for all the inputs (if there will be any)!