[deleted]

I just finished "The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution" and I thought I had like 200 pages to go.

But those last 200 pages are sources and a bibliography. It's like half the book. It's absolutely mindbogling and insane.

How do you even begin to organize something like this?

How do you decide what's relevant? Where do you even start with something like this?

Basically what is the process of doing historical research?

I'm in an intro history class, US history up to 1877, and the textbook assigned/used is A People & A Nation A History of the United States 11th edition volume 1, by Kamensky, Sheriff, Blight, Chudacoff, Logevall, Bailey, and Norton, published by Cengage, ISBN 978-1-337-40272-9. Anyways, Just wanted to get that out of the door to avoid any mistakes. The textbook in Chapter 7, on page 183 in reference to the 3/5ths compromise that, "(The formula reflected delegate's judgement that slaves were less efficient producers of wealth than free people, not that they were three-fifths human and two-fifths property.)" This is the first time I've heard that claim. When I asked my professor where that claim came from, because I had never heard it before, he didn't seem to know either. I couldn't find any citation or source within the textbook. My professor suggested this may be a newer claim supported by more recent work/authorship on some previously overlooked or undiscovered source, but I'm pretty lost. How legitimate is this assertion?

I have heard that professionalism in sport was often regarded with disdain in the west’s past, though I don’t know how accurate that statement is. So, when did professionalism in sport become widespread and/or socially accepted in the west, and, secondarily, when did the modern form of mass marketed, organised, professional sport emerge?

My mind boggles when reading, "De Rerum Natura."

It seems so incredibly modern, and I understand it had a great impact on many figures of the Renaissance.

Lucretius lays some groundwork for the theory of Evolution, deduces the existence of atoms, and holds that everything in nature can be explained by natural laws, without the need for the intervention of divine beings.

We know the ideas are based on Epicurean physics. But do we know anything about how the work came about,and how revolutionary it was at the time? Would ancient Romans have been wowed by this work, as were Renaissance thinkers? Or were the ideas old enough that it wouldn't have been considered that revolutionary?

[deleted]

Hello, all.

I'm American, but have always been of the opinion that even if America was never involved in World War II, the Axis still would have been defeated due to the might of the Soviet Union, albeit the war may have taken longer as the USA would not be present to provide supplies to other Allied countries.

However, I have heard among others that the USA was downright indispensable to the Allied. Here's a basic rundown of the viewpoint: Without the US fighting in the Pacific Theatre Japan would have easily taken Australia and proceeded to steamroll Asia. If the Japanese started to move across Asia, thus invading the USSR, the Soviets would have had a very slim chance of coming out on top. And even if Germany was defeated before Japan could have attacked the USSR, the Japanese would have still taken over almost all of Asia and from there the Allies wouldn’t have stood any chance against a united Asia.

How accurate is this perspective? Is there more nuance to this, or is it fairly true?

Thanks.

How likely was it for American slaves in the 19th century to be freed? What opportunities did they have to earn their freedom, and roughly what percent of slaves were freed? Did it vary by region?

Sometimes from popular portrayals of Native American tobacco use, you can get the impression that all use was ceremonial. Was that the case or was it also used recreationally? Were there people who would be smoking a pipe every morning? Was it limited to nobility and priests? Was there chewing tobacco?

During the Soviet period, there were many closed cities in the Soviet Union. Some of these were marked on maps and simply required permission to enter. Others were too secret to be marked on maps at all, and that part of the map would simply show emptiness.

I imagine it could be a pretty eerie experience if you were hiking or travelling through an area that your map said was empty and you came across an obviously bustling city. It’s the kind of thing that might make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, and make you ask “what is going on here?”

Or am I misinterpreting what this would have been like? Was it common knowledge that these cities existed? When I saw the city lights, would I have known that I should turn around immediately? Or would I be unsurprised and unconcerned?

I m getting a degree in history and my teacher wants me to write a synopsis/resume with a general opinion, she said" Don t read it has a book, read it has a historical source", how can i make my resume in way that says that i treated the book has a historical source what should i do

Or vice versa. Were there any soldiers who's racist attitudes changed after seeing the end result of their world view?

Eg. Why do we not have American/Canadian pounds?

While Pètain was called the hero of Verdun, he betrayed France later on by the Vichy-France regime.

How did a hero of his country fell so hard to even shake the hand of Hitler, the leader of the country he fought so hard against? More specifically: why did Pètain betray France and collaberated with Nazi-Germany, while being a hero and patriot at Verdun?

I need to find world war 1 footage within the public domain, for a project. It’s also for school so if it qualifies as free use it’s fine. Thanks!

In response to claims that the civil war was about states' rights, or that Southerners fought for state rights, some agree that it was or that they did, but that it was to slavery. "It was not about slavery, it was about states' rights to slavery." Some of these people whom claim that the states' rights aspect of the civil war was about slavery oppose honorable recognition of Confederates, that is, those part of the Confederate States of America. How accurate is this claim? Wasn't the aspect broader than that?