I'm a senior undergrad working toward a BA in history. Ever since I got into college, I've wanted to teach history. I went into college wanting to do that and I still want to do that. I've been thinking increasingly about getting a PhD for a number of reasons.

First, I absolutely love to learn and share what I've learned with others. I would love to teach at the college level. I would love to teach on subjects that are more specialized than just World History or US History. Being a doctor of history would give me so much more opportunity to research, to learn, and to write. Being able to do that as a job would be my dream.

My family, friends, coworkers, fellow students, and even my profs have been incredibly supportive of me, telling me that they think I should go for it and that I would be a good professor. I think I would, too: I'm passionate about history, I know I'm good at explaining information and concepts in an engaging way, and I love to learn and write. Every historian I know tells me how much they love their job and it's very inspiring to me.

But everything I've read, including similar advice on this subreddit, is really discouraging me. I keep reading how long it takes to get a history PhD, how few opportunities there are for people with them, and how unlikely it is for me to find a job in the field. I read about how stupid people think getting a history PhD is, and I find lists telling me all sorts of reasons why getting one is a bad idea. This subreddit especially has been vocal on how foolish pursuing a history PhD is.

Talk about crushing. I'm becoming afraid that everything I've been working towards is for nothing and that I'm going to have to give up what I really want to do. I'm afraid that what I want isn't the right thing for me for to do.

I'll be talking to my advisor and academic advising about this, but I could really use some honest but gentle advice on what I should do. Thank you. <3

The way I understand it, Napoleon was allowed a personal guard on his exile to Elba. Does this account for every Imperial Guardsman at the battle of Waterloo? Did he find more on his return to France, or did the French Military keep Napoleon's guard organization, and Napoleon simply used those?

Really, I've never thought much about the logistics of Napoleon getting his army back after he returned, but this part really didn't make sense to me.

The Idaho Oregon border mostly makes sense to me with the Snake River presenting a natural geographic boundary & it's southern border as I understand it conforms to the former northern border of Mexico but I'm curious about its long eastern boundary. Western Montana & a sizeable chunk of Western Wyoming both were originally a part of Idaho why'd they get lopped off & added to other territories? Also why did North Idaho become a part of Idaho rather than Washington?

Was it more solemn, from a sense of religious truthfulness, or was it mere tradition, perhaps in the way modern Americans celebrate Halloween and Christmas?

Even more specifically, I am curious about cults of Dionysus and Apollo, as I believe they were two of the most important ones. I'd assume lesser cults would be treated more casually.

Link to image in the comments!

I was talking to a Chinese friend about the history of the Chinese Communist Party and their efforts to develop China. I argued that perhaps a non-Communist government might have done a better job, especially during the period surrounding the Great Leap Forward. She replied "where would we have been without world communism?"

Apparently she is under the impression that world communism, primarily the Soviet Union, provided significant assistance to China to help it develop. Is this true? I'd never heard of this before, but it seems it's taught in Chinese schools.

I'm mostly thinking about the 1960s or thereabouts, but I'd be interested in any such support happening from the 1950s through the 1980s.

I‘m sorry I’m sure this is such a stupid question, but I’m wondering to what extent the vent diagram of hippies and ‘ok boomers’ overlaps?

I feel like I could see them having been very into vaccines or being really against them. On the one hand they were super authoritarian were very into “science” so I could see them viewing vaccines as a great advancement that would create a bigger and stronger German nation. In the other hand a lot of what they did was obviously just flat out pseudoscience and it seems like at least a segment of the Nazi leadership was kind of into, for a lack of a better term, “new age” stuff like being neopagans and having a sort of connection with nature, hence the “blood and soil” and seeing Germans as having a connection with nature. So did the Nazis tend to take sides on the positives or “negatives” of vaccines? Or could they have had mixed views amongst themselves on the topic?

Something that I was wondering. Whenever I see a map of an empire, kingdom, dynasty, etc, I wonder how we know that those were the borders of that nation. Were there maps that were made by people from there? Are there written accounts that describe the extent that a nation's power had over the land? Do we use accounts of neighboring nations to decide where an empire or kingdom's borders are?

I think this was before the Persian war or after. Wasnt there rivalry between Sparta and Athens. They all were part of Ancient Greece. Why did they turn on teach other?

The skull of a T. rex and the bones of a pterodactyls wings look like the skull and wings of a dragon respectively. Was the myth of dragons created when our ancestors dig up the bones of an extinct species?

Just to be clear, I'm aware that Mass Timber is an industrial production of wood that didn't exist in the past. But we certainly had timber and large, strong trees.

I am a young reporter with a Spanish digital media outlet and will be moving to Washington DC in two months to cover a wide range of news, mainly related to US politics, economy and society. I am looking for book recommendations in order to prepare for this challenge. I have a bachelor's degree in Journalism and Political Science, so I'm not a beginner, but I'm willing to learn more about US history to have a better understanding and background. Which books do you consider as essential for a stranger journalist who wants to get insights into the country? Thank you very much!

Hi Historians! :)

I am writing a fantasy novel, and I wish for it to be as historically accurate as possible in regards to how feudalism would work and such. And I then encounted this little carfufle. Hope you can help me. :)

Kind Regards
- AnnoyedPebble

Exact quote from my Corporate Finance (Berk, DeMarzo) textbook: “Unhappy with the political leanings of the board, the state legislature effectively took control of Dartmouth by passing legislation in 1816 that established a governor-appointed board of overseers to run the school.”

What was the political disagreement between the state and the College? I tried looking it up online but the focus is on the Supreme Court case and not of the specifics of the disagreements.

Carthage was dominant so much of the 2nd Punic War; what factors helped Rome survive ?

Given that it was precedent for US presidents to be limited to two terms, though not explicit law yet, there would likely have been some resistance to him seeking a third and fourth term. Aside from just political grandstanding by the opposition, was there any legitimate efforts to disqualify him or impeach him for violating this precedent? Were there questions at the time of whether he could legally run again and did anyone entertain challenging his election in the courts?