In terms of assets held and in how can you compare his wealth from then to now

History Major redditors of r/AskHistorians, lend me your ears!

I have been contemplating going back to college to get my Bachelor's Degree in History and was hoping for some insight as to if this is a smart decision and what kinds of jobs you have managed to receive due to having your degree. I've had several people tell me it is not a useful major and wanted to know if this really was the case.

​

Sorry in advance if this isn't the proper place to ask, but it seemed like it would be based off the subreddit title.

I apologize if this is not an appropriate question for this subreddit, but I was wondering what some quality resources on the Athenian General Alcibiades. He was briefly mentioned in a history course I took, and I'd like to know more about him. Thanks!

I was in Italy last week and went on a tour of the Colosseum. My brother and I were looking out at the floor (where the floor used to be) and wondered if anyone ever tried to streak the games. Are there any accounts of this anywhere? What would have happened? I personally doubt it would have happened, it's one thing to run across a baseball field and get tackled by portly security guards, but it's entirely something else when the people you're running past have javelins, swords, nets, etc... My brother insists that we can't underestimate the capacity of drunkenness, stupidity, and youth.

[deleted]

Hi Everyone,

I am starting a new project, and I am in need of narrative or chronicles books regarding China, Korea, and Japan.

I have checked the reading list, and while there are some great books, I'm not sure if they fit what I am looking for.

The best example of what I am looking for is George Sansom's Three volume of "A history of Japan". Those volumes go through the origin of Japan, Heian period, the various shogunates, and the Meiji restoration. However this book was also written in the 1950s making the book potentially outdated.

​

Do you have any recommendations for these three countries with the books I am looking for? Some of the books I have found on my own had discussions and reviews citing bias and "pushing agenda or view". I am needing more of the narrative or chronicle type books.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

If it's the latter, what led to it?

It also seems like we can point out fewer 'great' well-known individual scientists from the latter half of the 20th Century. Is this related? Or is it just a perception issue again?

Were there major magazines and journals, or was it mostly book or magazine publication? Was it mostly locally produced or translated? There's a great deal of information about American and European science fiction produced between 1922 and 1991, but not much about science fiction in the USSR.

B/c of recent comments about Robert E. Lee, the massacre at the Battle of Crater has come up. There's also instances where Nathan Bedford Forrest murdered Union soldiers and atrocious conditions of Andersonville. But are there instances where the Union army participated in what would now be war crimes against CSA troops? I'm fairly well read in the US Civil War have never come across anything and I was wondering if it never happened or if it was just something that was unacknowledged b/c it would make someone look bad, or that the instances where it did happen were so small that Forrest's actions overshadow them completely.

I can't remember where I read it, and my Googling abilities aren't the best, but am I remembering that correctly?

I have been reading Le Morte D'Arthur and have also been getting into Dungeons and Dragons recently. I was curious why the figureheads of the Satanic Panic during the 1980s related the stories of fantastic heroes in a medieval setting hunting dragons and going on great quests with the worship of Satan rather than the stories of the Knights of the Round Table. As I thought about it more I also became curious about how the nuance between good and evil sorcerers in the stories became ignored during witch trials, where it seems to have been assumed that anyone who is accused of sorcery was in league with Satan.

Overall, I'm trying to work out how wrong the Whiggish narrative for England really is. While it does seem a bit of a stretch to try to construct a continuous tradition of parliamentary constitutional monarchy that extends back to the Anglo-Saxons, it does seem like England was "less" authoritarian than other European powers by the 19th century, and even people like Bolivar commented that Spanish American independence was more difficult because they were less experienced with representative government. But then on the other hand, you have England's vehement (and perhaps even fearful) opposition to the young French republic.

So: was England slightly more "democratic" than other major European powers in the 18th & 19th century, and if so, is this the result of revolutions under the Stuarts, or an older tradition of (partially) representative government?

In the near-century since, it has become the world’s busiest airport by passenger traffic (beginning 1998) and by daily landings/takeoffs (every year since 2005 except 2014) - yet Atlanta is only the 38th most populous city in the United States. What factors have permitted the airport to play such a significant role in global travel? Why did the airport grow faster than the city? Why didn’t New York wind up hosting the country’s busiest airport?

Like how would they fasten them to their backs to be able to grab it when needed. Like a swords sheath

This is a weirdly specific question, but I'm writing a book and I need to understand royal family trees to get it right. One thing I discovered was the Nicholas Maximilianovich de Beauharnais the 4th Duke of Leuchtenberg had two legitamate sons, Nicholas Herzog von Leuchtenberg (1868-1928) and George Herzog von Leuchtenberg (1878-1929). So why did Nicholas' brother Eugene become the 5th Duke instead of Nicholas II or George?

This comes from a footnote in the latest edition of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, but his source is "scholars of Japan," not any named individuals or papers. Is this credible info? Has anyone any plans to continue the research in the future?

Hello Historians, I am wondering why Asia didn’t build empires like Europe did between 1500-1900. Was there no desire? Was the political infrastructure too weak? Did they follow isolationist policies? Did they not have the technology? I know Japan had an empire, but why did they take so long to develop in comparison to Western empires?

Sorry in advance if this question seems extremely ignorant.

I'm not sure if the source was credible but It stated that infantrymen would pair up in their formations equipped with different weapons. One would wield a greatsword for fencing the enemy and the other would be using something else to kill him once they locked blades.

[deleted]