Please no one preach their religion I understand that a large population of the world is christian and believes 2000 years ago some magic man was the son of god and walked on water etc but I want to know what historians believe really happened. All religion aside did he actually exist or was he a culmination of stories and religious tales passes down orally. If he did exist did he set up elaborate magic tricks and performances to gain followers and trick people? Are there any Roman records? Whats the most likely reality and what really happened?

Do historians use myths and legends (epic poems, religious books, etc), not of course as sources, but perhaps as indications of what might have happened in the past?

My question arises from the discovery of Troy, Mycenae and other cities that were mentioned in epic cycles, but were thought to be mostly legends until archeology unearthed them.

In the same concept, do for instance historians try to find clues that might support a legend or a myth, or are all myths considered fantasy, unless more concrete evidence comes up?

The fall of Granada in 1492 seems like quite an anticlimax for the Muslim world given the fall of Constantinople in 1453, so I was just curious as to whether there was an attempt by Muslim powers in the Eastern Mediterranean to support those in the West.

I’m sorry if this isn’t allowed, please if so can you redirect me to the dedicated subreddit? Thank you in advance!

Saying that von Braun was a Nazi looks contrived and sensationalised.

From everything I read, it looks like that von Braun was a pacifist, who joined the Nazi party late and reluctantly, so that he could continue working on what he loved. He was even arrested by the Nazis for suspected dissidence?

Where’s the truth? Are we doing a disservice to his memory, when we say von Braun was a Nazi? Is there evidence of him being anti-Semitic or supporting the extreme policies of his government?

Gavrilo Princip died in 1918, just months before the final armistice of WW1. Was he aware of the carnage he started? If so what did he think about it?

During the Đại Việt period, the Vietnamese states of that time trounced Song Dynasty China, crushing armies in the hundreds of thousands in border actions, and held back multiple invasions by the Mongols under Kublai Khan during the Yuan Dynasty, including totally destroying the Mongol navy at the Battle of Bạch Đằng. The Mongols/Chinese, in fact, showed very little ability to win any victories at all against the Vietnamese in this period, and in fact, suffered what seems to have been consistent defeats, one after another.

Why then did the Trần Dynasty (Northern Vietnam, today) and the Champa (Southern Vietnam, today) both agree to become tribute payers to the Khans, a relationship which lasted until the end of the Yuan Dynasty?

Extra Credit: what exactly did the tribute consist of, and how were the payments made?

I’ve seen a ton of movies with great Medieval battles involving spearmen and knights. Then after knights, there seems to be no pop culture or documentaries about warfare until the rise of the musket.

I know the period 1400-1700 (give or take a century) is a large one, but I’m totally in the dark about those periods.

Bonus question: How did small nations like the Netherlands, Venice, Sweden, etc. compete with the larger nations like France, Austria, Spain, etc.

As I understand Rabbis are all descendants from Moses brother Aaron, thus the Aaronic priesthood, however I've seen people claim that the modern day rabbis are not part of it, but I don't understand

Throughout the history of Carthage it is often talked about how their armies were primarily mercenaries. But in conflicts with Syracuse and especially Rome, they both seemed to have been capable of continually drawing troops from citizen bases and allied cities.

Was their citizen base just very small comparably? Or was there something in their early history that made them prefer to pay people to fight instead of fight themselves?

From what I've read, the lever-action repeating rifle design didn't really take off before the 1850s, but a design was created and patented in 1848. Though, it never made it into production. What becomes unclear to me is whether the improved version of the 1848 design made it into widespread use. The improved version being made by Lewis Jennings, that, according to Wikipedia, was not only built, but also sold. My question is, was this version (1849) widely used in the U.S., and if so, available to the average Joe or more reserved for law enforcement and/or richer types?

This passage has always struck me as strange.

Menelaus and Helen are just sitting around, exulting in the memory of Helen betraying Menelaus. It was a costly betrayal, too. Thousands died to get her back, and it took many years. An entire land was ravaged by war. Many probably suffered back in Greece because their husbands were gone.

Shouldn't Menelaus react in rage? And why no shame from Helen?

The only excuse given was that she was seized by Eros with a mad passion. Apparently her own desires were secondary. She wasn't expected to resist this impulse, so Menelaus doesn't blame her.

Would this excuse have ever flown in antiquity? The whole thing seems far fetched, but would ancient readers (or listeners) have thought it strange?

I've been reading the works of several medieval historians about the Mongol invasions of Eastern Europe, and one thing keeps popping up in every source: The stone castle.

Apparently the Mongols weren't able to take a single one in several invasions of Hungary and Poland. Hungary was also said to have constructed over 60 stone castles in the years following the first invasion, and they seemed to have worked flawlessly against the 2nd invasion. Historian Andrej Janes even notes that "well-fortified castles were impenetrable to the Mongol army".

So why is this? Historian Stephen Pow points to natural terrain advantages, but that doesn't seem like it's the whole answer.

Sources:

A Phantom Menace Did the Mongol Invasion Really Influence Stone Castle Building in Medieval Slavonia, Papers of the conference Fortifications, Defence Systems, Structures and Features in the Past by Andrej Janes

Hungary’s Castle Defense Strategy in the Aftermath of the Mongol Invasion (1241-1242) by Stephen Pow

Deep Ditches and Well-built Walls: A Reappraisal of the Mongol Withdrawal from Europe in 1242 by Stephen Pow

I am looking into writing a paper on the Confederate State before those first shots were fired in Ft. Sumter. Specifically the time between February 7 1861, when seven states adopted the CSA constitution and April 12th 1861.

I’ve managed to do some initial research but haven’t been able to find much during the time period besides US forts surrendering to the CSA.

I am wanting to explore how the CSA state Governed as a whole during peace time. The possible trade routes with the United States, movement of us Federal Troops out of CSA territory and other ideas I’m debating adding.

Any help or reading suggestions you can give on this would be amazing!

Taking into account his other plays, notably Richard III and its virtuous depiction of Richmond, it seems to me Shakespeare was under heavy influence of the powers that be. What happened in this one instance?