It seems, old secondary sources (1920-1970s) are widely cited in modern works and often provide exceptionally detailed view on the topic. Like a dozens-fold magnification of a citing paragraph. The danger stems from their age. Hence the questions:

1. How safe is it to resort to old sources? The question is not about grand historical narratives of the past – most of them, I think, haven’t survived the scrutiny – it’s about factual accounts and small-scale narratives, stitching those together. Could new data significantly invalidate them? Are there public changelogs for history books, or it’s a private professional knowledge?
2. What is the accepted way of searching for modern substitutes? I mean, one might search for modern books as usual, but are there shortcuts from the target old source to the new ones? (besides “cited-by” section of google scholar)

For some context, I don’t know exactly when he was born as I never met him. But he was old enough to have been an adult when he helped firefighters after the San Francisco ‘big one’ earthquake in 1906. He lived until the late 60s I think but I could be wrong.

He didn’t settle in California though and returned to Liverpool where lots of other family members had left Anglesey (where he grew up).

Not sure if historians are the right ppl to ask. I’m searching my ancestry. Particularly between 1890-1920 in lebanon and Egypt. It’s fairly complicated area with the ottoman rule, fall, WW1, and subsequent french mandate. I know ottomans weren’t particularly good at administration. So my question is, are there any archives that contain information such as births/deaths of citizens in these areas during these times ? Thanks 🙏🏼

Somehow I've discovered my knowledge of the French Revolution is nearly non-existent. What are some good books about both the Revolution and Napoleon?

I prefer a more reactionary take(as in views the Revolution with a bit of contempt instead of praising it as some great step forward), but I would want something more modern to accompany Thomas Carlyle's work on the matter.

I've heard from people that nearly every Presidential election is disputed by the other side in U.S. history, and from others that it's been every President since Reagan that the tactic had been developed and used by both sides. What is the actual history of claims of illegitimate Presidential elections and far back does it go?

For the scope I'd like to have the most recent two Presidents, Biden and Trump, to be left out. As both of the claims around their elections are undoubtedly fresh in everyone's mind. So focus on Obama and back unless it's in reference to a previous case like, "What was claimed about Trump was similar to what was claimed about President X." I want to avoid political arguments.

The first English colony in the Americas was Jamestown, VA, established by an English trading company with the goal of profiting by extracting resources.

Later, Puritans established a colony in what is now MA.

Jump forward and a Virginian commanded the revolutionary army, another wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Virginians dominated the early presidency.

MA, however, is known as the colony where early revolutionary violence fomented and where the war began.

Revolutionary philosophers/agitators tended to publish or write in the cities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.

When and why (do you think) did the New England puritans grow to be presented (at least in primary and secondary education) as the origins of what would become the US?

Do you perceive this as historians (or others) not wanting to source the future US in colonies established for profit with forced labor vs. a colony established for religious freedom because the latter fit better with revolutionary rhetoric (or just made for a better patriotic story)?

Or do you think they went mentally backward from the revolutionary activity in Boston, to source that in the Puritan experience? For the latter, the mercantilism of the northern cities seems more connected to revolutionary activity than Puritanism, IMO, given the rebellions against tariffs.

Or something else?

Anyway, what is your analysis of the development of this historiographical narrative?

And are there published any interesting histories of the historiography of the US?

Often times when we hear about the Atlantic Slave Trade or the Middle Passage we only hear about the countries of Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Denmark. But not Eastern Europe. Is there a particular reason for this?

You always hear how the Native Americans were killed by the millions because of foreign diseases, but you never hear about the same thing happening to the European settlers? Surely the Natives would have also had diseases their immune systems adapted to fight that the Europeans Had never encountered.

Correct me if I’m wrong. My world history is rusty, but Germany invaded Poland, then France and the British declared war in retaliation. The US remained neutral during that time.

A lot of revisionists like to say France surrendered “immediately” but they waged war for almost a year. France only had England as allies. Hitler also broke the rules when Germany attacked neutral countries to get to France (Belgium & Luxembourg). And Paris was lost, the capital city of France.

I know memes of French waving white flags will persist, but I’m surprised no one calls America out for staying neutral up until Pearl Harbor.

Apologies for how dumb/weird/vague this question may sound but I'm having a lot of trouble narrowing it down.

What I'm referring to is, how likely/possible would it be for someone to make it through life without seeing human on human violence on the "institutional" scale; so primarily things like wars, raids, as well as public executions or physical punishments. Im not necessarily asking for periods of total peace, more just like, even if there WERE wars and executions going on, could an individual reasonably avoid participating or seeing these things if they wanted to? I'm also not counting things like domestic violence within the home, or like medical practices that are violent and gruesome but arguably consensual.

I did want to leave the time and place somewhat open because I'm interested in this in like, anywhere in the world in the past really.

I am reading the letters of Seneca although it is a reoccurring theme throughout his letters, I have chosen Letter 16: On Philosophy to quote.

Whether the truth, Lucilius, lies in one or in all of these views, we must be philosophers; whether Fate binds us down by an inexorable law, or whether God as arbiter of the universe has arranged everything, or whether Chance drives and tosses human affairs without method, philosophy ought to be our defense.

She will encourage us to obey God cheerfully, but Fortune defiantly; she will teach us to follow God and endure Chance.

He is talking about a singular God. Is it a Hellenic one? If yes which one? Or is it a later Christian alteration to his writings? Who/what is this God?

What if says on the tin. Chainmail seems a really hard piece of armour to make, and it seems to me smiths knew how to use plate for helmets and greaves. So why did chainmail dominate so much and why did plate armour not catch on till later? I imagine it must have been something practical, like the amount of time it took to make. But that said, chainmail seems really intensive. Thanks for any answers provided.

Hello! Long time lurker here and I thought I would ask a question that has bothered me for some time now.

Korean Americans are the most religious, but many Chinese Americans are also extremely Christian. This is surprising because the Christian faith isn’t very popular in China and most Chinese immigrants are not in need of the sort of aid missionaries often provide to facilitate conversion

As the bison were a huge staple of native American life I find it strange that native Americans weren't farming them and using them as pack animals before the Europeans arrived. I'm not sure if the the bison would be as easy to tame for the the native Americans as it was for the eurasians to tame the aurochs