Like, why did Martian Luther hated the Jewish people for example? I just don’t understand.

Was the Byzantine army not as good as the Roman one? Or was it that the enemies of Byzantium were simple better than those of Rome?

I'm currently writing a paper on how to apply microhistorical methods to a modern primary source and am looking for examples. Preferably modern American, but anything will do. Useful articles on this topic would also be appreciated! Thanks!

Did people in ancient Egypt, Rome, Mesopotamia etc understand the concept that a species could become extinct? What is the earliest recorded mention of extinction?

Unsurprisingly school seemed to have left this part blank, but it seems to be a big deal. I mean one of the biggest powers allying itself with the Union while threatening France and the UK from aiding the confederacy. That sounds crazy to me. Can anyone shed light on their involvement? I understand they sent to fleets to San Francisco and New York.

Did imperialism really economically benefit nations like France? Or did the cost of maintaining colonies ultimately outweigh the benefit long term?

It seems (from my non history degree perspective) that a nation like France or Italy could be where it is today without the colonies it one time possessed. Thanks in advance!

I know that the Confederate States of America needed an important victory,but what else built up leading to the battle of Gettysburg? Oh and why Gettysburg?

So Way back then my history teacher said that Karl Marx’s communist manifesto was not popular at the time.

He said that

-Karl Marx noticed that the working class struggled throughout history

-He wrote manifesto on how the working class could come into power

-He said that the working class needs to remove the middle class and replace them.

I was looking at some communist memes and this came up in my mind. Thanks!

As an American, I think I've got a pretty good understanding of slavery in the USA, probably. But when I read about other times and places, and slavery happens to come up, it seems to be a really different thing, and it's confusing. Like, one video says Vikings were slave traders, when another book says slavery died out in the Middle Ages. Or like, slaves in the Muslim world that were powerful ministers, generals, and even sultans; or slavery in the ancient world (thru to the Roman empire) where it seems connected to either debt or war captives; or slavery in Central Africa, where pre-existing slave merchants sold "their own people" to European buyers. In all of these examples, it seems like slavery fundamentally worked differently than it did in the American context I'm used to. (like, it's not in any way connected to race, and only sometimes connected to agriculture.) But there's never a lot of detail on it in the stuff I read. So I fill in the definition of "slave" that I have, and it doesn't seem to make sense.

and i mean, i don't want to be super interested in slavery, but it doesn't make sense and I want to understand.

Thing is, all of these contexts are also ripe for "white slavery" narratives and other racist arguments that seek to minimize the African American experience. So I don't know how to find plain old information on this. Can you recommend any books or scholars? Any region, any time is fine. Thank you.

If so, are there any examples of her using absolutist methods of rule?

As I understand, swords have historically been rather expensive and difficult to make. Further, there is some evidence that especially in large-scale formation combat the spear is superior. So, why did Republican Rome relegate the spear to the elite, reserve Triarii and equip front line troops with swords?

Hilarious pun aside, I just finished listening to the Hardcore History episodes about the Mongol Invasions of the near East. I know I may be late to the party on this topic, but I came away with a couple questions.

1.) Did the Khans fight against the Byzantines? There's a lot of talk about the Mongol destruction of the realms of Islam, Russia, and Eastern Europe. But the podcast never mentions the Byzantines. It just seems weird to me that they would've bypassed that whole realm.

2.)Sources talk about Mongolian armies reaching sizes of 150,000 strong. How the heck did they live off the land? They were known for not having baggage trains and each rider having multiple mounts. I just don't understand how the terrain, especially the steppe plains could sustain such a host. Not to mention the weeks spent keeping a city under siege.

I was reading a few different threads recently, and a similar concept of "it's not about the (quality) of the older sources per se, it's about how they're read". This was sort of in reference to misrepresentations, mistakes or just general "bad" history.

It got me thinking: reading primary/secondary/etc. Sources is a skill to be developed (or so I think), but has there been a shift over time in how sources are written? Are there generational (or even uhh, decade-tional?) differences one needs to keep in mind when reading a historical account of an event?

Is there any conclusive evidence about whether intercultural trade sparked the agricultural revolution, or if agricultural revolution came first and intercultural trade was a byproduct. (Pre-agricultural ’centers’ of trade might be a stretch I assume, but maybe common migrant routes or something?)

I’m sure there was some interplay, but am hoping there is some evidence to show whether hunter gatherers independently discovered farming in various parts of the world, or if the idea was formed through intercultural exchange of goods and ideas and then spread out through migration and further exchanges.

I was wondering if anyone knows a book or website where history is written from the perspective of the modern era. Maybe they filled in the gaps with the things we know today. Just thought it would be interesting

Good evening historians. I am wondering if there are any good books that you can recommend on the golden age of piracy? I am also interested in piracy (pre-modern) in general, but the golden age is what I am really interested in. Looking for stuff for the general reader, but if such a book does not exist I would stretch to first-hand accounts or academic texts.

I haven't heard of any war where the NVA was involved.

I'm guessing it was to help with aiming their weapons. How did navies even do their fire control systems back in that day? I used to imagine they just gave senior gunnery seamen control of the guns, who "walked in" their fire through trial and error.

I read that the chambers were repurosed near the end of the war to be air raid shelters, how was oxygen supplied then to the chambers?