I’m curious. We have so many sources of history, primary and secondary. But I’m wondering, what’s the process like of discovering new historical information? How does a concept go from unknown to widely accepted? I’m specifically curious about university settings.

I would love to know and find the truth behind this all for past and present. It seems that everything inside is very conflicted and most are from documentaries( witch I find are often biased and/or trying to push an agenda).

I've been trying to do some research into this after a completely random argument broke out on whether or not clay casting (making a mold in other words) was 'precise' enough to make the brass casing to make ammunition. I've looked around and found plenty about the original making of cartridge rounds, and the materials they were made of - but not the process used therein. Sheet metal pressing looks like it's old enough to be a possibility - but does anyone happen to know how they made these casings originally?

So I am trying to shut down a Holocaust denier who uses the film "One Third of the Holocaust" as his proof. What can I say about this that will prove his point wrong?

Historians mostly agree that Romulus Augustus was not the last Roman emperor and Julius Nepos was. I’ve always been confused why because Julius Nepos never really had power and just claimed to be the rightful Roman emperor.

I was recently listening to an interview about someone who got arrested trying to permanently leave East Germany for West Germany and was put in prison. This story led me to wonder about what happens to criminals and their criminal records after regime change, particularly when the change is from a "police state" like East Germany, to a democratic one like unified Germany. Would attempted escapees get released with a full pardon? How did they work out who were political prisoners?

My understanding is that medieval thought held a great respect for the writings of Plato (but I could be wrong about this) if this is the case, is there any record that catholic thinkers struggled with the fact that Socrates was gay?

Hello dear historians. I am a lawyer looking for academic books or articles leading up to and during the Khmer Rouge. Economic and legal bents are appreciated but not necessary. Many thanks in advance for any titles you can offer.

What books, resources, etc should I start with?

My history education seemed to be entirely focused on political and social changes.

Hi All,

I am looking for books that speak to the Jewish experience in MENA* including the time after the diaspora (Roman Conquest) to the founding of Islam and the experiences of Jews under Islamic rule up until their expulsion from the same, most in 1948 but until 1978 in Iran. I have Lewis' The Jews of Islam, which I've started but I was hoping for some more.

I know that is a large time frame but I am having some difficulties finding anything.

I have read a few books on Arabic History which talk in general about the Jewish experience and some on Israel as well, I will list those here in case it adds anything/so they don't get recommended again:

• A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Kramer

• A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Axeworthy

• Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry, Lewis

• The Arabs: A History, Rogan

• A History of the Arab Peoples, Hourani

• The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, Lewis

• What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam & Modernity in the Middle East, Lewis

• The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, Lewis

• The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Wright

• Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, Oren

• Herzl's Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State, Avineri

• Israel, Gordis

• My Promised Land, Shavit

• Jerusalem: The Biography, Montefiore

Thanks!

Quite a few times I've heard it mentioned that when Peter went to Europe he had a hilarious first encounter with Polish king Augustus. They agree to have a meal, and when King Augustus arrives he realizes that one of the silver plates is dirty. Displeased, he rolls the silver plate into a tube. Peter thinks August is displaying strength, so Peter picks up the silver plate in front of him and does the same thing. Augustus sees the challenge and picks up another plate, and the men roll up all the plates until they reach the end and have a laugh at the way they've broken the ice.

I've heard that a few times and I just saw it repeated again in a documentary I'm watching, but when I've looked I haven't seen any kind of source for it. I would like to believe its true, it's really funny.

I've always been confused as to why the super states of the eastern Mediterranean utterly collapse all around the same period time. I know the "Sea People" invaded and raided ports and decimated the region and that has been the historical consensus for years, but was this the only cause? I'm also aware of the idea that the "Sea People" attacking them opened up opportunities for other tribes to attack the more inland settlements of these empires. I guess I'm just curious if there are other theories of why the peoples of the region collapsed or if they were in decline before the "Sea People" came and the invasions of other tribes.

I've heard a story about a baker in the USSR who would only go into his shop once or twice a month, bake hundreds of loaves of bread, then do nothing for the rest of the month. Did this actually happen in the USSR, or is it an exaggeration?

The Ottoman Empire probably had the best claim as an extension to the Roman Empire, and Mehmet II as far as I know styles himself “Emperor of the Romans”, but with Suleiman the Magnificent the empire became much more “Muslim”. I was wondering how strongly the Ottomans felt they were an extension of the Roman Empire, or maybe even the Caliphate?

As a kid growing up in the 90s (30 now), we were taught at school that no one actually knew what happened to Hitler, this was in school textbooks and seemed to be the general consensus at the time. A body had never been found and it was assumed that he was dead but there was no mention of suicide etc and really the whole thing was a mystery.

Fast forward 20 years and everyone generally holds the view that Hitler killed himself in a bunker, what recent evidence points to this? What has come to light in the last 20 years that hadn't in the 60+ years before that?

Can anyone that has studied WW2 recently at school give an idea of what is taught in textbooks now?

Just seems strange that we were taught one thing 20 years ago with what I'm assuming is the same evidence we have today yet these days we are being told something completely different.

I know it's two questions that are mostly unrelated.

I’m struggling with knowing what I can and can’t believe from the bible ! Was Jesus real? Did the disciples actually spend time with Jesus ? Was he crucified? So many questions and I need to shed some light on them. Is there any beginner books on this topic !? Thanks !

Malta is a small island that was constantly under air and sea attack. It was under siege from all sides. Why couldn’t the Axis launch a amphibious invasion?