In search for a monograph about the Dutch settlements in North America, particularly in or around what is now New York State. I will use this text to write an academic review and basis for a 10 page essay later this academic quarter.

I’ve been wondering if you were to write a book on Cleopatra for example, where would you go to find the information to put in it? Where are primary historical sources made available? Do you have to travel to the place you’re writing about? I’m not wording this great but if I were to write a historical book, if I could find the information online or in another book, I wouldn’t be motivated to write the book as I would feel I was plagiarising in a way? I’m not saying historians are obviously. I’m interested in writing a historical book, but when I find the information for the people I want to write about, I feel demotivated and don’t see the point if the information is already available, I hope I’m phrasing this okay.

This is hotly debated from what i`ve read and not a subject i know much of as i am from Wales. From what I have read it was more a case of the spreading of diseases more unintentionally than not. What is your opinion on the population drop and what caused it?

I cant find an answer to this with some basic research or on r/AskHistorians. I assume there must be some oldest text that names the day of the week. Has there ever been a competing system like Babylonians saying it's Monday while Egyptians said it was Wednesday?

I recently bought a WW2 era M1928 Haversack and cartridge belt from ebay, and to my dismay, I found that the adjustments can accommodate a maximum of I'd say about 5'11 or 6'. I'm 6'3, and I was wondering, although soldiers averaged less height in the 40s, what was done to outfit the rare 6 ft + soldier? Did they simply avoid the mass-produced items that were height limited, or did they have modifications to their gear?

By black British I mean people living in Britain prior to enlisting or being conscripted (regardless of what ultimate regiment they served in), OR black soldiers serving in the British "metropolitan" army regardless of country of origin.

thought this was a bit of an interesting point as there is plenty of literature on BWIR and also the KAR but practically nothing, as far as I can tell, on black troops originating or serving in a British (geographic) regiment.

Sorry if this question is too broad. Today the two major parties in the United States are obviously the Republicans and Democrats. However, there have been a number of other political parties in the past, such as Whigs, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, etc. My question is, what factors led to the demise of those defunct political parties and/or if the current parties are just a continuation of previous political parties, what led to the name change? Do you think it is possible or likely that we could see the fall of either the current Republican or Democrat party and the rise of a new political party to take its place?

Reading Roman history is full of accounts of their great store of manpower. Despite military defeats they were able to overcome their enemies by simply raising another legion. Why is this? Was it due to their political system which was more effective in recruiting people or was Italy experiencing a population boom?

Specifically concerning Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh—how did these spellings come to be? With contact from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, and Normans over time, I would have thought these languages would develop a written language with less strange (sometimes seemingly nonsensical) lettering choices. Since many of these sounds already exist in the Latin alphabet, what influenced them to adopt such odd spellings?

When did Shakespeare come to be evaluated as more important than his contempories and has that stayed constant through time? Would a school child in, say, 1790 have learnt Shakespeare in the same way as they do today? Or has it changed over time?

Edit. Clarification: I am thinking about how Shakespeare, rather than for example Marlowe or Johnson, became seen as THE literary genius. Was he recognised as being the central figure of the Western canon through the centuries or has that ebbed and waned?

Ildico was the last person to see Attila alive. I read he died from nosebleed. I guess their men would have found suspicious to find Attila dead and with his face full of blood. Did they suspect Ildico? Had she anything to do? What was her fate?

I read online that it was advantageous to have them on your side when invading a fortress so they were often awarded signing bonuses when recruited.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, and someone can set the record straight for me. But from what I understand, around the time James Monroe became president, the Federalists collapsed and ceased to exist, and there was only one party for the remainder of his presidency, the Democratic-Republicans. And then at the end of his presidency, the Democratic-Republicans fractured into multiple parties.

So wouldn't that make John Quincy Adams and his allies Democratic-Republicans? But then when that party fractured, it just so happened Adams aligned himself with the pro-centralized government faction that became "National Republicans" and later "Whigs"? Or is there some nuance I'm missing? What was it that distinguished the Federalists from the National Republicans/Whigs? And what distinguished the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans from the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren? Why aren't they both considered continuations of the earlier parties?

My question specifically arises from the film, 1917, in which a British soldier in World War I sings the American folk hymn, "Poor Wayfaring Stranger." How likely is it that British people would have known this song at the time?

I was reading the History textbook(Vietnamese High School book) and they wrote that Ho Chi Minh and the party had to make some take some steps back and gave away some seats in the National Assembly for the so called opposition-reactionary parties like the VKMT or the Revolutionary Party of Vietnam, both are relatively called Viet Quoc(they actually call it the Vietnamese KMT in the 1930s timeline, imo because the VKMT led by Nguyen Thai Hoc was the only real VKMT according to the book) and Viet Cach. In fact, the vice president of the DRV was the leader of Viet Cach, these moves were made to "protect the newly independent countries from internal reactionaries and colonial invaders". What I want to ask is: was the vision of Uncle Ho for a Republic of Vietnam a democratic, multi-party republic? Did his ideals never happen because of the US' intervention in Vietnam?

Were most of his 95 theses something that was already discussed among some parts the Catholic clergy, or was he proposing something completely new?