Herodotus is considered the father of history and Thucydides the father of historiography. If I understand correctly, the reason is that historians are not trying to just chronicle the events, but rather trying to understand what reasons led to, and what the consequences were, of these events.

So how do historians treat the time before historians? We definitely have archeological findings and writings of people before historians appeared.

Is it just a sequence of events, or an assumption based on whatever is available? Can historians be certain what led to the events of history and what their consequences were based only on annals, monuments and archeological findings?

I know that the traditional images of Santa Claus were many and varied, and only generally gelled toward "White guy with a white beard in a red coat trimmed with white fur" in the 19th century, codified by Coca-Cola ads in the 20th century...but how did Black communities interpret Santa Claus, historically? Today you see plenty of "black Santas" in the traditional suit, but how recent is that as a phenomena?

I mean, the sea is huge. How did two fleets actually find each other before a battle? Also, how did ships communicate with each other, even at close range?

Hello! As you can see from my question above, I’ve been wondering about the general desire found in individuals living in western societies for the fulfillment of personal happiness. My knowledge and personal experience is limited to western societies, so it this is a trend found elsewhere in the world, I would be interested to learn about those origins as well.

My uninformed hypothesis, based on the pyramid of needs, is that the fulfillment of personal happiness is likely to have been a ‘recently’ developed trend (17th-18th century) that is predicated by a rising quality of life, security, and individual liberty. The idea being someone living with a low quality of life, whether it be health related or socioeconomic, is more likely to prioritize urgent needs over personal happiness. The same goes for individuals living in dangerous situations. People living without individual freedoms are less likely to be able to determine their own life course, and as such will be less able to alter it in the pursuit of happiness.

My question is not to ask ‘if people have always wanted to be happy,’ as I’m sure humans have always preferred a happy feeling to a negative one, but to ask how and why did it develop to the extent that it became a cultural underpinning of western society.

In addition, if the fulfillment of personal happiness has always been around as an motivational driver, were there any societies or civilizations that have placed it in as central a role as we do today?

I always asked myself how much a horse can hold in terms of fatigue.

When yesterday I came across an active polo player and asked her how much a horse can resist without resting. She told me that every interval of 7 to 10 minutes she changes her horse. And she doesn't wear any armour, plus she's not riding in one of the most stressful environments: which I imagine would be a battle.

I found it astonishing and incredibly surprising because then, how could cavalry in ancient times (Roman era as much as Medieval times) be used in battle if horses would be tired in less than 10 minutes? Did they use to change horses? Did they not stay in the middle of the battle for more than 10 minutes?

Now, given that there are differences between races, training, weight and tactical decision and usage, how could they?

And what about heavy cavalry units, such as Cataphracts?

Thank you in advance, I really couldn't sleep over this thought :)

Whenever I see discussions on being transported back in time, something that always gets mentioned is that small cuts means death because of infections. Whenever I get a cut it heals fine, and I dont take anti-biotics, so what I want to know is what was different back then that most people didn't live as long and died easier from smaller injuries?

The box that came to me has some german wehrmacht patches, belt buckles, coins, and their version of a purple heart. All war trophies my grandfather collected from his time with the US 5th Armored Division.

I have absolutely no interest in selling them. As making money off that seems down right evil. I'd like to donate them but as they aren't worth very much I'm unsure who would even want them. Would a museum or local college historian want them?

I don't have the heart to destroy historical items. Any advice would be appreciated.

In the musical, Hamilton, during Cabinet Battle #1, Alexander Hamilton says to Thomas Jefferson, "Don't lecture me about the war, you didn't fight in it." Did any of the early presidents, like Jefferson and Adams, really catch grief for not serving in the military during the war or is military service/leadership more of a modern day presidential prerequisite?

So I'm an A-Level student currently completing my 4,000 word coursework, the subject of which is:

"Historians have disagreed about the nature of Hitler's dictatorship in Germany during the period 1933-39.

What is your view about the nature of Hitler's dictatorship in Germany during the period 1933-39?"

My three main chosen interpretations are Kershaw (Structuralist), Mommsen (Intentionalist) and Shirer (Sonderweg?). I'm reading chapters from The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich and I've picked up on some direct interpretations of Shirer's like his adoption of the Sonderweg theorem but I haven't picked up on a coherent interpretation as to what he believes unlike other scholars who have examined the same subject matter. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me better understand Shirer's interpretation and give any other tips/leads as well.

Much appreciated in advance and thank you!

I made this mistake a couple of years ago. I boarded a flight in a -3(C) London Heathrow and touched down a day later in a 35(C) Melbourne with 4 layers on.

(You can tell I don’t study meteorology).

But without satellite data, and only strong assumption, how did any of the first explorers understand this?

I find it interesting that Germany was carved up but the major powers but the other major European Axis power was not.

My grandmother’s brother was a navigator on a B-17 and was killed during the war. He kept an excellent journal (he was planning to be a journalist after the war) and his wife compiled his journal entries along with her experiences into a vanity published book. There are only a few copies extant among family members, but I’m reading it now for the first time and it’s a fascinating resource with lots of interesting technical information. I’m wondering if there is some sort of archive somewhere that would be able to preserve the book for historical purposes.

Was Shakespeare one of a a small group of playwrights that everyone would go and see? Or was it similar to today times where only a few went down in history, but in actuality there were many playwrights who made a lot of "filler" works as a career?

Who came out the best and did anyone "win" it?

If someone needed to travel a long distance in the middle ages, say across England in the summer:

What are the transport options? I guess walk, ride a horse, carriage or by boat. Was there anything else commonly used?

How fast could they travel, or how far could they travel in day?

Would there be towns/inns at daily distances?

Was the USSR at any time before Operation Barbarossa planning their own invasion of Nazi Germany? If so, was there a realistic chance they would go through with it or was it simply an idea/contingency plan?

When firearms were invented, how scarce were the ingredients of gunpowder? Was the production of this new kind of weapon limited by anything other than the knowledge how? I don’t know how to word this question well enough to even put it to google.

In nature, life is shaped by the most scarce resource, whether that’s heat, oxygen, water or food. The human world is no exception to most laws of nature. So to me, it makes sense that once gunpowder was invented and weaponised, there should have been wars over the most scarce ingredient of it.

Sulphur is described in wikipedia as ”abundant”, which means precious little to me as a non-chemist layman, I don’t see chunks of it laying around like pine cones.

I can find no mentions of how common saltpeter is, but nowhere speaks of it as a scarce resource.

Charcoal is needless to even mention.

So, was it just a matter of knowing how to make gunpowder and weapons that use it? I can find no mention of wars being fought over sources of sulphur or potassium nitrate, so was the scarcest resource really the knowledge?

So to say, everyone had the means to make guns, they just didn’t know how?

I don’t know if I already stated myself clearly and am now merely repeating myself, or whether I’ve entirely lost everyone and struggling to ramble.

I have heard this stated time and time again (even in this subreddit) despite all the studies I can find putting Stalin's death toll at 6 - 9 million and Hitler's at 14 - 20 million. Is there some historical research I am missing?

When did people start to make this claim and when/how did it become sort of "common knowledge"?