I have always wondered if the romans reached subsahara africa. I know they talk about people that are "Negrus" wich means black. But are those people from ( countries now) Egypt or Tunis, or did they really come from (countries now) ivory coast, ghana? I guess if they knew they existed, it would be the people who lived by the sea? Thanks!

I’ve always respected Ike for his stance on the MIC but he was also staunchly anti-communist, where procapitalist war seems like the definition of the MIC.

The camps during the Holocaust were prime breeding grounds for diseases to spread through them. Did the SS have any measures to make sure that they themselves did not become infected? If so what were they?

Preface: not sure if this belongs, if not I'm sorry. I just couldn't think where else to post to get serious answer/discussion.

So the common idiom goes that history repeats itself. As Paul Cohen just said in this book I'm reading (Speaking to History: The Story of King Goujian in Twentieth-Century China) and some profs at my university have also alluded to, "for modern historians the notion that history repeats itself, even in a vague, impressionistic way, is not generally acceptable."

To me it seems that seems a bit over generalized as surely there are situations where history has repeated itself, especially in the context that he's discussing where he explains that it is a widely shared assumption in China. This makes sense to me a Chinese history seems rather cyclical with dynasties rising, the country dividing, and repeat.

I'd like to know what you folks think.

I already have my opinion but I was more seeking information on an alleged quote by Joseph Goebbels. Some right-wing page I saw posted an alleged quote where he said, in German, "the idea of the NSDAP in German leftism... We hate nothing more than right-wing conservatives."

This quote sounds like a fabrication and it's cited as him saying it in Der Angriff in 1931, but I can't find it on snopes or anywhere being debunked as bs, perhaps because it's not widely used. Any information on the authenticity of this quote would be greatly appreciated!

What area of history is worth getting a masters/PhD in? Many of my professors advise not going into the renaissance or the classics as it is hard to get tenure. Is this true? What area, country or time period is in need of research? This is not particularly a question of history however no one better to answer this question than a historian :)

I've learned and read a lot about the triangular trade and the significance of naval trade in the New World. What did trade look like over-land among the colonies and Native American groups? Thank you!

Whilst doing some basic wikipedia research I stumbled upon the fact that Voltaire died one year prior to the start of the French Revolution.
His beliefs for sure were pro-revolutionary and from what I've read at the time of his demise he was very popular and liked, also his funeral was festive((?)not a native English speaker).
Were there any direct ways that his death influenced the beginning of it? Like reminding people that no one else is going to fight for them now and they have to start fighting for themselves? Or was it just a coincidence that an event he would like to happen began a year after his death and the cause was pretty much disconnected from his persona?

TDLR: Recently, I’ve finished watching the Netflix series “Self Made” that purported to recount the life of Madam C.J. Walker. I had numerous issues with the film but I have the same issues with many supposedly “historical” films. What do prominent historians think of film as a tool to teach history?

I am currently a graduate student and frankly, if so many details and inaccuracies are going to be present I’d rather the films not be produced. These films have such a hold on the average Americans conceptions of history no amount of scholarship is going to change their minds.

Anyway, back to my example of this docu-series. A ton of important information was left out of this film, and unfortunately, the general public will absorb any and all film media and assume its gospel truth.

Just to point out a few inaccuracies:

While the point of colorism is a valid concern and a significant issue faced by people of African descent, the character (Turnbo in real life not Addie) Madam C.J. Walker encounters with the hair products was in fact dark skin in real life and from the records we have there was no indication of a colorist feud between them.

Further complicating this issue is the fact that madam C.J. Walker did indeed sell products for this woman early on in her career. She wasn’t refused a sales position because she didn’t fit the ideal image. The women were rivals and did have a falling out but nothing we have indicates they were so competitive with each other. From what I’ve seen (admittedly I haven’t exhaustively researched this, only a few monographs/biographies) they were rivals in the sense they both were in the same business and at two points in their lives were in the same cities.

They did not at all discuss the fact that Madam C.J. walker moved to Denver prior to moving to Indianapolis and before she had moved to Indianapolis had already changed her name legally to Madam C.J. Walker. It wasn’t in response to a feud with “Addie” (Annie Malone).

There was no reflection of Madam C.J. walkers philanthropic activities either.

These are just a few of the gripes I had with the production. However minor they may seem to some I think the fact that the feud between Walker and Addie was so pronounced and the fact it was made up of some fabricated colorist feud really makes this a poor piece of historical content.

I'm not sure how the question came to mind, but anyway, I was wondering if after collecting "protection money" from businesses, the Italian Mafia would actually "protect" the business. For example, if another family came knocking for protection money, or the store was robbed by unassociated petty criminals, would they do anything to assist you? Or was it a straight up racket with no protection from anyone but the family demanding protection money in the first place?

What do the primary sources tell us?

I've heard very conflicting things about this. Some say their presence in old accounts are just mythology, to be taken no more seriously than accounts of trolls and sorcery, which are also definitely present in the Icelandic Sagas. Others say that there are legitimate historical accounts of warrior women being found among fallen Norsemen after battles.

I do know that graves have been found, in which a woman has been buried with weapons and armour, so a woman fighting was a thing that HAPPENED, but were those cases utter outliers rather than indicative of a wider phenomenon?

Is it as simple as there just being more settlers in Angland that they didn't need to settle with Britons?