Many of you must have studied history. That's why I wanted to ask a few questions: what you did after your studies? What job did you get thanks to your studies? Do you regret your studies? How was your study experience? Does it make sense to learn politics with history? If I went into politics, would a history degree help me? (the same with law? ) (asked becouse my local University offers politics with history and a lot recomend going in to law with it. )

Thanks to everyone who can help me with these questions. But I have a few more specific questions that only a few of you can answer. If you studied in the alpine area (innsbruck or in the area of ​​2-3h) would you recommend your university to me? Does it make sense to specialise in Roman history in the alpine Region?

Conclusion tanks to Evryone. I realy would like to study history but i just dint know if it was worth the time and money

I want to study history, but there are too many details in the books. and i get lost in these details. For example, I am currently trying to read the middle east book by bernard lewis, but I am making very difficult progress. Should I research everything he mentions or just read superficially? can you give advice?

I realise the Senate had a mostly nominal role after the Republic fell, especially during the years of the Dominate. Even so, I have a hard time imagining what specifically the Senate did during the reign of Odoacer and his heirs. The empire was in shambles, the infrastructure barely (if at all) sustainabile, the cultural output of the old Roman intelligentsia was negligible compared to the previous centuries - and yet the Senate lasted till the early 7th century.

How would a senatorial 'meeting' take place under these circumstances? What were they discussing? What did old senatorial families think they were doing while these discussions took place on the ruins of the empire?

I've heard this claim repeated a couple of times. Is there any truth to it? And if they did, how was their economy able to function? I'm no expert on ancient (or modern) economics but I thought that slavery was the backbone of most ancient societies' economies?

I remember being taught in high school about a leader of Iran I think, and I can't remember anything clearly about him or find anything on him and all I remember is he really liked trying to westernize and modernize Iran and they revolted and hated him because he was obsessed with American pop culture or at least the look of it I think,

Was it as common as the silk road?

Framing the Middle Ages and The Inheritance of Rome both look to cover similar subject matter. Is the latter an update and improvement on the former? Or a condensation of it (it's shorter despite covering a sllomewhat longer period). I want to read his take on the period but am unsure which to purchase.

Most depictions of monarchs, specifically European monarchs, in paintings or fiction show them without a crown except in very formal events like coronations. It seems like a pretty inconvenient thing to wear a big metal crown with a bunch of jewels on it. Was it ever common for monarchs to wear crowns around regularly outside of very formal events ?

Thank you for your time and knowledge. The following text is context for my question. And I mean it only within the time and place of your discipline and study. Thank you.

I will phrase this question to the best of my ability. I would say the general consensus.

Genrally agreed on. A norm if you will.

The question is, not what were the formal written rules of engagement.

In the time and place of your study, concerning mercy killing, how was human life valued in war time?

I again, am writing a little further to give additional context/insight into my query. Thank you.

We hear all about brutal torture and war crimes in media, which is not a reliable source. Does seem to be a common part, factually I do not know, that is why I pose the question. From Aztecs to Britanny. All through civilized history.

Are those outliers? I mean. Has human brutality, in regards to war and your area of expertise and study, remained the same? Increased or decreased?

Mercy killings in war. If you won the battle, in the time and place of your study, generally you simply killed the losing side? As quickly as technology allowed at that time?

In this regard only: mercy killing in war, Have human beings become more civilized? In the sense, of for example, POW's, being presented as a relatively new and progressive idea. Not killing them I mean. Just capturing them.

I am not a historian. Nor formal scholar. So, I appreciate any consideration that may be given to this. My motivation for the question is I have an idea, a belief that people have an innate respect for human life. I wonder if history may support this idea, or dissolve it.

I feel the need to preface this by saying/disclaiming that I am in no way attempting to diminish the abhorrent nature of American Slavery or grant any sort of absolution to those who participated in it. I recognize that questions which touch on this territory can be seen in that light, much as with anything that treads too close to the territory of Holocaust denial. With that out of the way...

I am searching for any examples of a mass-slaveholder who did not treat their slaves as chattle. The most obvious situation would be a plantation owner, but any instance where someone's business relied on a large amount of slave labor will do.

To be clear, I'm not just looking for slaveholders who thought themselves decent people and treated their slaves "well". A good example from another time and place would be Oskar Schindler; someone who used their slaves' labor and what proceeds they generated to protect them from the systemic horrors they would otherwise face in Nazi Germany/the Antebellum South (though not necessarily with Schindler's total financial ruin via bribes and the like). This could mean compensating them with wages equal to what white men would make, using profits to protect more slaves--possibly family members--or help current ones relocate as freedmen.

Thanks for any help.

Specifically regarding the son of the Tsar and his hemophilia. It seems clear that many educated people regarded Rasputin as having miraculous ability to heal. Even the boys physician said he understood why they thought this since Rasputin would appear and spit and the boy would be immediately better, which couldn’t be explained medically at the time.

It seems hard to imagine that Rasputin was so bold as to knowingly try to trick the Tsar and his family and just happened to get lucky and have the boy healed over and over after he performed his scam.

So have any historians gathered information and tried to provide an explanation for what happened? Perhaps Rasputin had actually somehow discovered how to stop the boy’s bleeding in a way unknown to the medical community of the time?

I ask this question as a devoted Trekkie, someone who had years of passionately defending the series as “philosophy with rubber aliens that should be taken seriously it’s about humanity it references Shakespeare goddammit” and still watched this movie and thought “Yeah, this seems weirder than normal.”

I'm curious about this. In media adaptations of the Regency Period, it seems like everyone knows how to dance the exact same steps whenever there's a dance sequence. This happens all the time. From Bridgerton to Jane Austen adaptations such as Pride and Prejudice, it seems as if everyone on the dance floor follows the exact same routine.

As someone who took Ballroom Dancing classes before, this is incredibly difficult to do. It's not even a matter of knowing the steps or not. You can memorize the steps of an entire routine by heart and still butcher a performance if you're dancing with someone you've never danced with. The differences in skill, timing, and coordination all come into play when dancing with someone.

To pull off a near flawless dance routine, you need to have a really good understanding of your dance partner. During these Regency Era media adaptations, Gentlemen ask ladies who they've never danced with to dance and they seem to dance through an entire song without making any mistakes. Furthermore, they seem to be dancing in sync with everyone else on the dance floor.

How is this possible? Was there a "universal" routine for different dances such as the Waltz or Quadrille that everyone knew? Were the people during the regency era really this good in dancing? Or was everyone just dancing to their own beat and not following a set routine along with everyone else?

I understand this is delving deep into the fog of time, but shouldn't one expect some sort of civilization existed to allow the construction of a place like Catalhoyuk? From everything I know, having that level of specialized skill and time in one place needed to construct something like Catalhoyuk, would imply there was a functional civilization there wouldn't it?

I hear a lot about intellectuals during this era hosting salons, but I have only a vague idea of what they actually are.

Were they simply the 18th c. equivalent of a cocktail party, with guests mingling and chatting? Was there some sort of programming, like music or speeches? What might prompt me to leave a salon and remark to a friend, "That was wonderful. Madame Roland has really outdone herself."?

It seems abit of a paradox that Northern who were anti-slavery would be so against the Emancipation Proclamation, despite their racial views. If someone can shine a light on this for me I’d really appreciate it.

This question is specifically about the cultural and social history of Russia as opposed to its economic conditions. What was it about Russian society that made it so receptive to Bolshevik ideas?

Hello!

I was curious as to why the British Prime Minister himself intervened to protect Coco Chanel from prosecution after the allied liberation of Paris. I understand that at some point she was interviewed by either American or British intelligence some weeks or months following the end of the war, but that she never went up on formal charges for her seditious & treasonous actions following the Nazi occupation of France.

Even after the war, she apparently took care of a convicted Nazi war criminal, General Walter Schellenberg (who I believe was head of SS intelligence), upon his release from prison due to liver disease.

Why did she get away with her crimes & why are her Nazi sympathies not discussed more given her company's still-significant presence in the world of high fashion, design & toiletries?

Thank you!

Edit: Unsure why it flared this as "medicine".