Could anyone please suggest a thorough & in depth book on the history of the aboriginal peoples of the Caribbean, central, & South America? In the U.S., we seem to only learn briefly about the Maya, Aztecs, & Inca as well as the major tribes of the contiguous States. We hear almost nothing of the other native groups of the Americas.

I would love to learn more also about the indigenous peoples of Alaska and Canada's First Nations. Thank you.

In September 1802, Lady Emma Hamilton purchased Merton Place in Surrey. Surprisingly to me, not only she and her Husband moved in, but also Nelson, with whom she’d been having an affair for many years.

I understand that Sir William must have known, the affair had not only been going on for years but the three had that same Summer embarked on a tour of Wales together.

My question is, in such a conservative society, obsessed with standing and honour, why was Sir William so at ease being cuckolded by Nelson, to the point of quite peaceably cohabiting with him?

Has this been written about anywhere? It seems so bizarre to me and yet totally unelaborated upon, like everyone already knows the answer.

Any explanation or suggestion would be appreciated.

You'd think one of the top 5 deadliest wars of all time would be discussed more often.

Personally I really enjoyed it, Vogel seemed somewhat liberal at times but he generally held a very objective stance. Also the CIA reviewed the book before it came out to make sure "classified information don't leak" so I was disappointed I never read something about the alleged role of China in Afghanistan in the 80s

I keep finding mixed sources. Some say they just handled economics and didn’t serve militarily. Others say they were veteran noble knights that just didn’t take monastic vows. Some say they were volunteering peasants. Could someone please clear this up for me? On that note, were there any noble knights that volunteered militarily but did not take monastic vows?

In the early parts of the European colonization of the Americas, would we have seen longbows/crossbows used? Matchlock muskets seem to have a low rate of fire and were cumbersome to use. In conflicts with indigenous peoples, which oftentimes were fluid and decentralized, wouldn’t it have made more sense to use a less cumbersome weapon? That’s not even to mention the difficulties involved in shipping new guns and ammunition back from Europe. If archery was used by early European settlers, when would they have stopped being used?

My husband’s grandfather has a dilapidated farm in upstate NY. As far as they know, it dates to the 1840s based on a cornerstone. However, I’ve found survey data showing that there was a home on that property, basically in the same position, as far back as 1787. The two main points of reference are the road (the same road as now) and the creek a couple hundred feet away (which has slightly changed due to beavers, it seems).

It would seem that there was an original home prior to this home. My main question is regarding construction practices at the time: did settlers (seems like these were German settlers possibly) tend to build the larger, more permanent home a couple hundred feet away, or did they tend to add on to what they had? We would like to metal detect before the property gets sold to see what we could find, and having this historical view of construction practices would be very helpful.

Apparently, centuries ago, the monarchs of Korea used silver chopsticks since silver would change colors upon coming into contact with poison. And then, the public opted for steel chopsticks as a means of mimicking this practice.

Does this hold any water?

We all know the stories of Merlin and whatnot, but were there any people in real life who claimed to be wizards or magicians?

So this is quite a broad area obviously so I’ll add some clarity. Today, in most countries militaries there are defined procedures to follow when a soldier is killed or wounded in action. This usually results (at least in the UK and US) in the family being notified as soon as possible and usually in person by specially trained staff. Then back as early as WW1, telegrams were often used and I believe newspapers would print daily lists prior to this sometimes.

My question is, how did this system work prior to mass communication? Let’s say for the sake of an example, a British soldier is shipped out to America to fight in the revolutionary war. He is either killed in battle or more likely dies of disease. What, if any, systems are in place to notify his family back home?

Here in India dogs have historically not been seen in a favourable light. They're mostly seen as a lowly animal and a symbol of barbarism. But then in the West I see dogs being adored and loved by people who almost treat them as a member of their own family. Is this unique to Western culture or are there other cultures which show similar adoration?

We know that the battle was in 480BC. But do we have more precise dates? Like month, season and such? Now to my (limited) knowledge the Georgian Calendar was not around. (I think)

Thanks for any and all information.

Just saw the Anestasia musical (would 10/10 recommend as a musical, probably not as a history lesson) and the events of the revolution were pretty much characterized as: Romanov’s killed, cut to everyone living in a communist hellscape. It got me wondering just how long it actually was between communism being instated to the majority of the people not having a very great time.

In their book The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow write the following:

"The colonial history of North and South America is full of accounts of settlers, captured or adopted by indigenous societies, being given the choice of where they wished to stay and almost invariably choosing to stay with the latter."

To support this, they cite a 1977 study by Joseph Norman Heard titled The Assimilation of Captives on the American Frontier in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

Some historians have contested this and Wengrow has defended the claim. I was wondering what AskHistorians thinks of this?

I had always read that Alexander’s eastward march was uniformly successful, and he only stopped at the Ganges because his men refused to go any further East. A quick scan of ye olde internet this evening backs up my childhood education, but a friend of mine has an alternative position. He insists that this is a highly euro-centric interpretation of events, and in fact Alexander lost on the battlefield in India, or was at least sufficiently weakened that he could not progress further. Since my googling only yielded results which support my own bias, I thought it might be interesting to ask here for a more grounded perspective on events.