What is the best method to take notes and fully learn everything I read in history books? How can I acquire singular property on a subject in a way to discourse about it with ease? How do historians and scholars do this, for example? How they synthesize what they read, in primary or secondary sources? Thank you very much!

I’m interested in learning more about the history of the far-left and what the different "factions" (Leninist, Maoists, etc) believe in and how they're different from each other. This is probably a pretty broad topic and there's probably not one book that covers everything, but any books on any of the belief systems would be helpful. I’m guessing that the Communist Manifesto is a good starting point? I’m also looking for other books like the Communist Manifesto about these other “factions”. Thanks in advance!

I was reading a brief description about the reception that Amsterdam gave her in 1638, but the author made it very clear that political circles were not fond of her. First of all: what does the expression mean? Mother of ruin? I can't find a definitive answer. Second question: why did she have such a reputation even in Amsterdam?

A quick definition for those who need it:

• Presidential system = separate executive that is not directly accountable to the legislature
• Parliamentary system = executive is subordinate to or part of the legislature and basically works for it

So, all 50 states in the USA all use the same system with three separate branches of the Government. The federal constitution only requires that state governments be republican in nature, so a state could in theory set up a state parliament with a first minister/premiere instead of a mini-Congress and a governor, right?

Speaking of being mini-Congresses, all states except Nebraska have bicameral legislatures, and most are called the "House of Representatives" and the "Senate". They had all the creative freedom in the world when drafting state constitutions, and they all happened to pick this combination?

Why?

Im sure it's mostly politics, but it seems so strange to me. For all intents and purposes, they were in all out war against each other just as they were less than a decade before. Why would two nations wage war all the way across the Atlantic when they're so close to each other?

Hello, I’m an aspiring writer and I am working on a story to make into a movie.

It’s an alt history piece where Rome didn’t fall and discovered steam power.

Now it isn’t meant to be totally realistic, it’s more of a steampunk style.

I’m just wondering what could have realisticly lead to a steam powered Roman Empire, and if not possible what changes to the history could have.

Thank you for reading and I hope you will get to see the labor of your answers one day.

To be more specific, what aspects of the fall of the Soviet Union led to what many political scientists call a "controlled democracy" wherein elections are held, but the outcomes are rigged. Technically its a democracy, but it isn't quite free and fair as you often hear democracy described.

For every conflict there is a beginning, a middle, and an end. For England and France what was the beginning? What started the conflict between the two countries that lasted for centuries?

So I often see what might be a throwaway line, that it is problematic to consider historical figures as heterosexual or homosexual, because people in other times did not understand sexuality in the same way as people in modern times, and therefore historical figures do not fit easily into modern categories.

At first blush, this would seem to contradict a modern understanding that sexuality is something innate - say for example, a person is born homosexual, it is not something that arises from external factors. If this is the case, I would expect that we ought to be able to apply some modern concepts of sexuality to any time in history. It's a basic biological fact, it ought not matter if the individual is in Ancient Rome or modern day China.

Is there a debate here, either within history or between history and other fields?

I read this paragraph in Wikipedia and I am confused about it:

"Western women of the 14th century sometimes sported pierced as well as rouged nipples left visible by the low-cut dresses fashionable in the day."

Modern pools require plenty of equipment to stay up to a clean standard and chemicals that I doubt were even known let alone available in ancient times. Let's take the Romans around the time of Ceasar (others welcome too). I frequently see large bodies of water in villas or other housing in artistry and frescos, how would they keep them clean and free of Algea and serious doseases?

Did the geographical location of a soldier's hometown effect which theater, or which area, he would be deployed to? I recently listened to Dan Carlin's Supernova in the East where he spoke of different soldiers having different fears. While cold could affect one soldier badly, a different one might be ill-fitted to tropical surroundings.

So, would a soldier from North Dakota be more likely to be deployed to a colder climate area, as he is more acclimated to the weather, or even the topography of a certain area? I've heard of the stories learned during both World Wars where the UK and the US learned not to have whole neighborhoods or generations from certain towns in the same regiment, as it could diminish morale back home. But would the drafting process take soldiers from multiple regions in the south-west United States - say California, Phoenix, Nevada, and New Mexico - and be more likely to deploy them in the Pacific than in Europe?

Did the deploying process at all take into factors of how soldiers were used to geographical, topographical, and meteorological features of their areas of upbringing?

If the statistics for England in 1300 are absent, than any other time period in the Middle Ages, or any other region of Europe is fine.

Hi all,
I am a costume designer looking for information on or a description of watchmen/constables before 1790. I have found very little information about policing that dates before 1790/1800 when the first official police force was formed in Britain, and most of it has involved the Bow Street Runners which have no illustrated traces before 1790's(ish).

If someone could provide me with a period written description or painting reference/image of watchmen/constables from before 1790, that would be most helpful. Even a lead towards something would be amazing.

Thanks in advance!

I was wondering this when realizing that our nations first university opened in 1575 (Leiden, The Netherlands), but I virtually don't know anything at all about how thing would go. Were there exams? A fixed cirriculum? Could females apply? Frat parties? Dorms? Scandals involving students? Or was it all based around religious studies?

Since James was King of Scotland and England simultaneously but both were separate kingdoms where and how did he reign? Was there a different management style for each kingdom?

Dear Historians, I recently had a debate with a Holocaust denier and although I found their arguments and evidence lacking and relatively easy to disprove, I was wondering what is some of the most damning pieces of evidence that the Nazis did in fact put so called “undesirables” in death camps with the goal of exterminating them? This denier argues that there was never any proof that xyklon b was used to kill people because no autopsy was ever performed by the victims. They believed that all of the pictures of the dead and burned remains were the result of typhus and other diseases and not from poisonous gasses. Were there ever any autopsies of the victims?

I would like to read a book on the history of the police force in the USA. I dont neccesarily want it to come from a critical perspective, but I would rather a book that is conscious of the issues apparent in american policing vs. one that is, perhaps, overly celebratory of the force. I'd like for it to be fair, in a word.

For the life of me, I can't seem to discern a difference. In the 18th and early 19th century, a frigate was a much larger vessel than the punier sloop, but by the eve of the Civil War, they seem very similar. One US Navy ship, the Cumberland, was called a frigate at commissioning and renamed a sloop after a refit, but she was a large ship and carried twenty-four heavy guns, more than some frigates.

Hi all-

I’m looking for a book about life in the Soviet Union (preferably after Stalin) that gives a fair assessment. Not reactionary “communism sucks” (or the opposite of that). A non-fiction narrative that gives a clear picture of life in the USSR as part of its backdrop would be cool, too.

If you can think of any titles, I’d appreciate it.