I'm doing research, does anyone know anything

While browsing the military history section of my local library, I came across a number of references to "New Military History," which sprang up in the 1960s and seemed to stir up lots of contentious debates about the research interests of military historians in the academy. "New Military History" doesn't actually seem to be new at all, and in the opinion of an ignoramus such as myself, it sort of seems like social history of military affairs with a catchy buzz word title. I wanted to ask some people who actually study this field for their perspectives. What is "New Military History"? Have research interests in New Military History changed since the 1960s when it first developed? Do historians still use this term or has interest in "New Military History" fizzled in favor some "newer" military history? Sorry if there is an FAQ section or something that I missed.

So the title says it all....I think? I grew up on Hilton Head Island, SC and there was a small area called mitchellville. Supposedly it was the first town of freed l slaves in the South, and part of the “Port Royal Experiment.” The history was always murky and the town did a bad job of promoting it. So what can someone tell me about it and where can I go to read and learn more?

As Napoleon was the most influencial Frenchman in history, there should be a lot of people named after him, for example by the bonapartist families. However, i don't know any people called Napoleon except the members of Bonaparte family.

Did it increase their power relative to men in the state of Utah?

I am aware that this changed over time. Just curious as families were split.

Hi! I’ve never posted on reddit at all before, but this seems like the best place I can go to get answers! :-) I’d really like to become an Ancient Greek History professor one day, so that’s basically what I’m aiming for. I’m 18, on my gap year, and just put in my uni application for USYD (I’m Aussie). I already know I’m into the course, ‘cause I met the ATAR threshold, so no worries about that. Here are my real concerns:

1. In order to qualify for Honours in the BA at USYD, I will have to, amongst other things, complete a 2nd major (my primary major will be Ancient History ofc). My question is, in terms of that 2nd major, is there anything in particular that could help me towards my goals? Honestly I’d really like to choose History; I’m super interested in historiography as a study, and the major offers a ton of options in that regard. Plus, I imagine a solid understanding of historiography would be a major bonus for a professor/academic historian. But would a dual major in Ancient History + History be way too much history? Would a 2nd major in something like Literature or Art History be just as helpful? Or am I better off just choosing a 2nd major I don’t really care for, but could use as a backup plan should the history professor dream fall through?

2. Thanks to opportunities I had in high school I know that I’m good at writing essays and arguments, and that I generally find most history prior to the industrial revolution to be almost equally interesting. So would I actually be better off looking at a different area of history (rather than Ancient Greece) in terms of job opportunities? I love being able to connect aspects of ancient societies and cultures with our own time, but I’m willing to sacrifice that love, and find those connections in other historical periods, if it means I’ll actually find a job.

3. Is there anything else you suggest I should start doing now to improve my chances of making it in this path? Any advice is welcome!

Cheers. I know that’s a quite of a wall of text, so I’m not expecting many answers. I’ve just really been dwelling on this stuff! Any responses are appreciated... but save the depressing “don’t bother trying to become a history professor” type stuff for elsewhere, please, unless you just really, really, REALLY don’t think anyone should bother to try. I’ve already googled this stuff enough to have read it all! Thanks!

The popular image of the witch is of a woman, and the bulk of accused witches in medieval and early modern witchcraft trials were indeed women. But what about werewolves during the same period? Were accused werewolves primarily men?

Did they capture their opponent by themselves or did they have some squires that did the job for them? How did they avoid getting hit by an arrow or attacked from behind while they were dragging away their captive?

Did North, Central, and South America before 1492 trade like how Europeans and Asians did? For example, did the Apache ever trade with the Aztecs?

What is by far the earliest documentation that we have of people smoking ganja? Was it India? Because I had thought it was in India, or somewhere like SE Asia. But... What is the history of the pot? The marijuana? The devil's lettuce? Thanks, and let it be

With people not having access to sunscreen and potentially having to be in the sun for many hours before things like farming could be industrialized, would there not be significantly greater amounts of people affected by this?

How did people prove their identity when they wanted to withdraw money?

Bonus points for diagrams and visual cues

I’ve been listening to the History of Byzantium podcast, and when discussing the final years of the war, the narrator keeps mentioning that there are no Persian sources for the conflict between Khosrow II and his general Shahrbaraz , so we have to go on what the Byzantines wrote, which may or may not be true.

Why is this? Is it because the Islamic conquest of Persia happened so soon afterwards that everything was thrown into disarray? Or are we generally lacking Sassanian sources hard to begin with?

I've heard many different accounts of Einstein's role in the Manhattan project, I'm wondering if there is a consensus view at this point

I have recently received a collection of material consisting of my grandparents’ personal papers. I have boxes containing a total of roughly a cubic meter of papers, which appear to include diaries, travel journals, daybooks and calendars for over 60 years, extensive correspondence (including a file marked as Grandpa’s letters to and from home during World War II), baby books, and assorted memorabilia (e.g. the program from Grandpa’s high school prom; the bill for the corsage someone bought to attend a funeral in 1951).

What should I do with all this stuff, beyond reading it and storing it, and gaining deeper insight into my forbears? These are the records of normal people, not individuals who make it into the history books, and it was not that long ago (roughly, the records appear to span from the 1930s to the 1990s). But is there some historic value that I can extract and share, from such a detailed set of records of mid-twentieth century life?

More generally, what happens to the vast groves of ephemera in old people’s houses when they die or decide to no longer retain this material? Surely, some — most — or maybe all might be of little to no value, to those who bear no relation to the person who made the record. But what resources do historians have to gain insight into mundane details of ordinary people from times past?

I am doing a project on the crusades and I have run into a problem I cant find on the internet. I have to answer “How did the crusades influence Christianity.” If anyone could help me I would be grateful. Thank you for your time

[deleted]

I understand the basics surrounding the massacre of Fort William Henry in 1757, during the French and Indian War. I was curious as to whether there is anyone in particular who "gave the orders" for the natives to attack the British after the surrender.

What would a typical sailor do? Did they have specific tasks that they had to do or was everybody working where needed. Was the ship an environment in which there was always something going on or was there a lot of downtime?