As it did the people in 200 AD know they were in 200 AD?

In other words, have there been any Christian theologians or movements that only wanted to focus their religious teachings on writings from the time of Jesus onwards - as opposed to Genesis and Exodus etc.

You hear many accounts, Biblical and otherwise, of people drinking wine for hydration. Germ theory did not exist, but what stopped people from realizing boiled was ok to drink?

Hi, I'm Spanish and sadly my historic education was really eurocentric, the whole conquista was treated as a sidenote where Colon found América and then it kinda happened.

But as far as I know the conquista was done with little investment in numbers.

I'm inclined to think that even with the conquistadores playing the natives against each other and the superior weaponry the conquest would have been almost impossible with a more solid ruler and the whole army, specially the Incas since that mountain territory should really hard to navigate for an invasor.

So my questions are:

Are there similar occurrences with conquest in Asia/Africa (established kingdoms/empires) without such a big disease impact? What happened, the same or they were able to hold better.

Were the weaponry so superior or the real strength was the surprise and alliances with other local tribes.

Any insight on that era would be great, thankyou for your time.

I suppose this is something of a historiography question, but from my understanding the historian's Charles Beard work of this name back when it was published over 100 years ago was at the time it was rather controversial.

With hindsight and much time past since then and now, for those with an emphasis on American history and historiography, how is it considered nowadays?

Today, most people in North Africa from Egypt to Morocco are Arabic in culture and language, but to the east of the Arabian Peninsula, even in places conquered by the early caliphates like Persia, the local culture was not replaced nearly as thoroughly. Why was North Africa more heavily assimilated into Arab culture than places like Persia and the west of the Indian subcontinent?

For being written 3-4 thousand years ago, we know a crazy amount about the Epic of Gilgamesh. We know most of the character’s names, their relationships, motivations, personalities, as well as many of the individual plot points fairly well.

How are we able to know so much about this story compared to others from that time or even significantly later? Does it just have to do with the amount of time and effort put into its study? The tablets it was written on being sturdier than paper? Being in a region that gave way to cultures that encouraged scholarship and study? Or something completely different?

I was coming back from the store, eating some delicious frozen dark chocolate covered banana chunks, and thinking about watching some more of "The Great" this evening. I realize that show is not a close friend of real history.

Still, it got me thinking about what Catherine the Great would have thought of my snack and whether it was likely that she would have ever even eaten a banana at all?

No clue who else to ask.

I imagine if there were, they wouldn't be very open about it since it would get you and your whole family killed, but if there were any, who were they and did they actually do anything other than feel bad?

This is an entirely "good faith" question. Groups like The Black Panthers and Nation of Islam are often contrasted with NAACP and SNCC based on their position on nonviolence, and Malcolm X is still a controversial figure because of a perceived advocacy for violence. But how often did members of these groups actually commit violence against whites to achieve their goals? I'm especially interested in murder statistics because I figured there would be some record, but it's surprisingly difficult to find.

Seems like it would have been a unique(ish) opportunity considering how fractured England was.

Kamala Khan's family are Pakistani muslim immigrants living in New Jersey. When they talk to each other, their language is identified as Hindi. Big part of their characters background is their experience during the Partition.

How likely would any of this be in the real world? Were Hindu-speaking Muslims common in India and how would they end up in Pakistan during the Partition? Would they identify as Pakistani? Would it make more sense for these characters to speak Urdu?

The Netflix documentary The Long Road to War establishes that Germany wanted to start a war while avoiding being seen as the aggressor, while Austria-Hungary actively strived towards war with Serbia. In regards to my question, it is mentioned that security in Sarajevo was very light, especially considering recent attempts at Austrian governors' lives and in comparison to when Franz Joseph visited the city, and considering warnings from the Serbian government about potential unrest. To me, this seems to insinuate that the Austrian-Hungarians deliberately got Franz Ferdinand killed by willingly putting him in danger to advance their goals for war with Serbia, in this way serving Germany's policy as well. Some might even go farther and speculate that Austria-Hungary plotted towards the slaying.

Is there a historical consensus on this? Thank you in advance!

I tried googling this while trying to educate myself but only found that denial came after the fall of the Reich. So , was there any denial during or leading upto the Holocaust?

Thanks for any advice!

And if so, why? I have many questions; could the Soviets not have won without it, how did it help Britain etc

During WWI when cavalry was armed with firearms (and possibly prior, I am not too familiar with cavalry weaponry throughout time), they were primarily armed with rifles. Why were they not armed with shotguns? It seems like the spread of a shotgun would be beneficial to the cavalry, as it would make it easier to land a shot while riding.

Could somebody please clear me up on this? I'd love answer that starts with a definition. Hoping that this is allowed in the sub, since it is a question about how historians analyse history.

This is a repost since I came across this interesting question but no one had answered it.

Hello everyone.

I'm interested in perspectives from historians (whether academic, public, etc) who can't conduct research into countries of interest because of circumstances outside of their control (warfare, pandemics, impossible to get a visa, etc). My question is: What do you do? Is research and writing impossible for some places? Are historians disadvantaged by a lack of travel in some ways?

I'm in a bit of a pickle myself - I want to write and do further study about Russia, Ukraine & Belarus (especially about Orthodox Christianity) but there's no way I can travel there under these circumstances! I've never been there, too. As I'm quite young, there's a concern I'll be taken less seriously compared to those who travel. The good news is that I have broad, similar interests, such as countries in the Caucaus mountains as well as the Byzantine / Ottoman empires.

Thanks.