Hi everybody ! I am a student at university, next year I'm looking to do a master in either American (USA) history or in British (+colinies/commonwealth nations). The masters I want to apply to require that before applying I need to have a subject of research or at least a broad idea of what interest me (in order to choose a subject). Obviously the subject I will choose must be interesting, precise and not too studied already (or with a new point of view).

So, I am looking for books, historical manuals and historical sources to help me choose a subject. I'd want to focus on the colonial era for the British Empire and do not have any preferences about American history.

Any help is welcome and if you have any questions about what I'm looking for pleas ask ! Thanks in advance for your helps.

Being in quarantine so long has got me thinking. For sieges like the Siege of Candia (which lasted 21 years), do we have any journals or testimonies from civilians who suddenly found themselves spending years behind walls or trapped in their cities?

Hello i'm new to reddit but i'll try to explain what i'm asking about, i'd like to know from which language phoenician was derived and when did we discover that ? Like at the time when phoenician was spoken, i guess people like canaan spoke it ?(not sure) but did they know that their own language at that time was derived from another specific language or did we just discover lately the origins of phoenician ?

I hope i get a clear answer and if you don't get my point please ask me to clarify more, didn't find more words to describe what i'm looking for sorry

I've been pondering on this question for a bit and can't seem to find a straight answer for it online. I theorize that their probably staunch isolationists as to conserve American neutrality and not get involved in the European conflict. I'm particularly curious on what was their stance on Nazi Germany, I assume they were mostly apathetic and wouldn't really care until after the war. Thanks in advance for the help.

Nowadays, and for quite some time if I understand correctly, many Scots strongly dislike when people (incorrectly) refer to all of the UK as England. Was this the same before nationalism really took of or were most scots fine with it before than?

What was the Depression like for middle and working class Americans? I know unemployment was as high as 23% and many people were absolutely destitute. In popular culture, the Depression seems to be represented by Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath," and by the gangsters of the era, such as John Dillinger. I assume life wasn't like that for most people.

What was the impact on the quality of life for Americans that didn't lose their jobs?

I know that there were people who tried to amuse him so as he doesn't put them on the list, but was there someone that was his true friend and basically immune from being killed?

I've heard some say the only thing that saved them was when the Germans went from bombing airfields to bombing cities; and that if they had just continued to bomb the airfields the Germans probably would have won the air war as there wouldn't have been many functional airfields in Southern UK

The accounts from Indian and Pakistani sources both blame the other as aggressor and have very conflicting reports. I don't know which one to believe. Any help would be appreciated.

His diary of the war was considered factual from late antiquity until 1702 when Dutch classical scholar Jakob Perizonius established the paradigm still accepted today that Dictys’ and Dares’ works were entirely fictitious.

Many times studying medicine I've encountered this tiny little notion: one of the causes of the fall of the roman empire (at least its western side) was the neurotoxic effects of lead poisoning.

Exspecially the noble, ruling part of society used to find fancy to drink and eat with lead objects: according to this theory, the lead poisoning effects due to this habit led to severe effects on the rational leading abilities of these people (one of the effects of lead poisoning, particularly since the childhood, is a reduction of the IQ).

I want to ask those of you who are knowledgeable in this part of the roman history: how truth is there? It's actually a solid theory?

I'm a medical student (soon to be doctor) and while I've learnt much about modern medicine, I haven't learnt much about the history and development of medicine, and so would appreciate any recommendations for books/articles related to this.

Time period, culture, methodology/analytic framework - I don't mind - anything is fine. It doesn't have to be a history of Western medicine (though that is what I have trained in, and I am only able to read English).

Thanks for your help!

I am currently taking an undergrad class on Modern Iran and was rather surprised to find that Iran was invaded by Britain and the USSR during World War II. The invasion wasn't covered in detail in my class readings; I'm curious as to how the invasion worked on a political and military (on-the-ground) level, as one of my main takeaways from the reign of Reza Shah was that his army was a large, well-funded, relatively "modern" one. I don't quite understand what factors definitively contributed to its defeat by the Allied forces.

I have seen just as many pictures for armies of the time fielding swords as I have for them fielding spears as their main infantry equipment.
I am not exactly asking whether a sword or a spear was better or worse for fighting infantry,
Instead rather I am seeking to know whether and why the spear or sword was more common amongst the ranks of Infantry in large armies..... and whether this descision was a cultural prefrence, whether one was clearly more advantageous or if it was simply an affordability issue for kings and nobles.

Note:

• Cavalry preference would also be interesting,
• Time period: 600 AD – 1400AD --> could be broken into 600-1000AD armies prefrences
  and if it changed to the 1000-1400s... if it remained the same preference then this isnt necessary.

Thank you,

I find this odd, there were also vikings in Sweden and Norway which are separated from Denmark by sea, so wouldn't it be more logical that there were vikings in north Germany, where they could go from Denmark by land?