Hey, I'm going to start university next year and I was seriously considering studying history but many people adviced me against it saying things like I wouldn't be able to have work since there's is no demand for historians in the market and that there was no point in studying history. Now my questions are: how much of this is true? And how would you respond to any of this critics?

Ps: I know this isn't the normal question type in this subreddit but I thought it was important to ask this

Ps2: sorry for the bad English it's not my first language

I do not understand why this has occurred only in some countries and what special conditions do these have to be so. The class struggle itself will lead to revolution by the proletariat and the establishment of communism. Why there have not been revolutions in all countries with the development of capitalism? (Sorry for my English, I'm from Spain)

You look at all these paintings and photos from across the five centuries of European dominance in the Americas, even in the oppressive heat of the tropical regions, and you'll see these rich people and royalty wearing the exact same type of clothing that Europeans would wear, which must have been just sweltering in a place like Brazil or South Carolina or San-Domingue. Multiple layers, high collars, corsets and long socks, wool jackets. Looks fucking miserable.

I don't even understand how people in the warmer southern countries of Europe like Spain and Italy ever adapted to these kind of fashions, let alone their descendants in the actual tropics.

Were people just completely unconcerned with being sweaty all the time? Unconcerned with comfort? Did they consider it simply a small price to pay for looking good and staying fashionable? I know in a world before air conditioning people were just tougher about these things, they had a higher tolerance for discomfort. But did they just truly not know how bad they had it? I still think modern Western fashion of business suits is ridiculous for most of the kind of climates people are expected to wear them in. But it's still a lot more reasonable than the kinds of things you used to see people wear.

In New World Inc., the authors say that William Bradford had intended a "common course", meaning a "kind of socialist endeavour". The authors don't go into much detail about what this plan really was. Are there further accounts of the kind of "socialist" community the Pilgrims who travelled on the Mayflower originally hoped to establish?

Source: John Butman and Simon Targett, New World Inc.: The Story of the British Empire's Most Successful Start-Up (2018)

Reading about early XX Century Olympics and, while I have a decent idea of how modern archery competitions work, I don't really understand what was going on back then. Was there a bird shaped target? Was it moving?

For what matters, the other terms are also obscure, so that, aside from distance and people shooting arrows at something, I don't really know what was going on.

How did Russian nobility get out of Russia and avoid becoming casualties of the Russian Revolution? For example, when did they leave/when were they able to leave, how did they leave, and how did they know to leave?

I wonder where exactly are the sources of these...and whether they are as crazy as it seems or there is actually quite a bit of logic involved.

I'll try and word this as best I can.

Why is the confederacy considered to be traitorous to the United States of America?

Obviously I understand that they went to war with them, but from what I've seen online (which is probably skewed) the second amendment says about "A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state" and this was ratified 90 years before the start of the civil war, so if the southern states felt that they were having their states rights restricted and therefore were no longer a free state would it not be their right to fight against what they deemed to be something stopping them being a free state?

I'm assuming that well regulated militia doesn't cover an army? Or is it the fact that they wanted to succeed from the union instead of just keep their rights that makes them traitorous?

Disclaimer: I don't support the Confederacy, or slavery and know "states rights" normally boils down to "states rights to own slaves"

Like what’s the job description of one who calls themselves a Historian. Are you educators, authors, or what? I apologize if this is against the rules but I was curious about Historians and what that really means.

No this isn't a Holocaust denial question. Something that is often repeated by David Irving etc is that there is a lack of documents. Does anybody know of any WW2 era German, or any other, documents referring to the homicidal gas chambers?

Finding a research interest

Hey. I’m a recent grad with a Bachelor’s in history (focusing on ancient Mediterranean). Some of my courses include:

• survey of ancient Egypt (Old Kingdom - End of New Kingdom)
• ancient Persia (from the Achaemenids, to Arcsacids, to the Sassanids)
• ancient Sumer and Assyria
• imperial Rome (from Augustus to the tetrarchy)
• Byzantine Empire
• Archaic and Classical Greece
• ancient Armenia

I have been taking Ancient Greek and Latin courses and have been accepted to a 1-2 year post bacc program in Classics. I do want to pursue my Master’s degree and eventually a PhD, but I have no idea how to look for a research topic (though I have a general interest in the ancient Mediterranean, hybridity and acculturation, the Bronze Age collapse, early Christianity, and Roman stoicism) [these are all very different topics I know]. Are there any resources any of you (in grad programs nor not) may have used to find your research topics? Any insights? Tips? Thanks beforehand.

I know elements of the south used what we’d call insurgent tactics today, but what were the southern generals thinking fighting on their own land mostly using a conventional style of warfare that put their opponents at such a great advantage?

Was it something that was considered? What did they see as the benefits of fighting conventionally? Did northern generals consider the possibility that could happen? Or did the fact that Union generals used looser rules of engagement than we do now make guerrilla war less beneficial?

Edit: wording

It just baffles me that a country can hold on to such a large amount of territory, like surely Russia would be plagued by insurrections/invasions, especially in places like the far east where it they would have plenty of time to organise an offensive

I know this, and any question regarding the medieval period is quite hard to answer, as "medieval" refers to several different cultures and governments at several different points in time. So, if you need a more specific place and time, consider 12th/13th century England and France (But, obviously not limited to these.)

In modern military forces, an individual is usually a volunteer or is obligated to military service through some sort of Forced Conscription system. However, large armies in medieval times, as I understand, were put together based on the feudal obligations of different lords and knights - Banner men, basically. But where would they actually gather these people? Were they gathered as volunteers from villages? Did you have to be wealthy in order to serve under a knight/Lord? Could the volunteer directly to the Lord? Would A village elder be ordered to muster a number of men from a village to join an army?. Would a lord give their units money to purchase weapons and armor, or would these men have to purchase them themselves?

I'm more asking how this would be done at the very first level of mustering a force. Like, if I'm a peasant, how do i go about becoming a fighting-man. I greatly appreciate any response, and ask for your patience in my ignorance in any of these subjects. Thank you very much.

Further reading sources are also greatly appreciated.