So we know that name of Macedonia come from the ancient kingdom of Macedonia, and that today Macedonia is mostly Slavs that came in 7/8th century - but they adopted the name of Macedonia (starting many disputes with Greece, but I don't want to talk about that here).
My question is do we know what was the original name these Slavs that settled in the region of Macedonia called themselves? How did others call them, especially Byzantines?

Hi, been reading a little bit about the Crusades in the Baltic and I'd really love to learn more, could anyone recommend any good sources about the military campaigns specifically or the more general history/society/culture of the Baltic at the time? I'm particularly fascinated by the existence of 'officially' pagan states in Europe so late into the Medieval period. Thanks in advance for the help :)

I've been reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and, among other surprises, it portrays Nazi Germany as a kind of anti-science country, teaching "German Physics," "German Chemistry," and so on, which rejected major scientific development and theories such as general relativity. "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" seems to confirm what "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" portrays: many of the greatest scientists of the time (Einstein, Planck IIRC) fled Nazi Germany. Though it seems like before the Nazification of Germany, Berlin was a scientific center of the world, the expulsion and censorship of science seemed to be a big deal under the Third Reich.

Opposite this is that in popular media (games, TV shows, works of fiction), the Nazis are often portrayed as geniuses with scientific achievements far beyond the other countries and powers of its time. To corroborate this, there did seem to be novel advances in Germany especially related to Werner Von Braun and rocketry. The question remains whether these successes were just piggybacking on the successes made during in the Weimar Republic or were actually correlated to Nazi policies and ingenuity.

Was Nazi Germany leading the world in science during the Third Reich, or is this an inaccurate portrayal of history?

As a kid I grew up believing that humans domesticated wolves and they somehow evolved into dogs. Is this true? Did early humans actually domesticated a dog instead of a wolf? How did this happen?

There have been talks about how dangerous radioactive fallout really is, but didnt the environment and the people around the explosion ever get affected, by these tests?

My question arises after reading Herodotus' "The Histories". In it he describes a Spartan battle as such (bolded for emphasis):

So he sent to the Lacedaemonians as well as to the rest of the allies. Now at this very time the Spartans themselves were feuding with the Argives over the country called Thyrea; [2] for this was a part of the Argive territory which the Lacedaemonians had cut off and occupied. (All the land towards the west, as far as Malea, belonged then to the Argives, and not only the mainland, but the island of Cythera and the other islands.) [3] The Argives came out to save their territory from being cut off, then after debate the two armies agreed that three hundred of each side should fight, and whichever party won would possess the land. The rest of each army was to go away to its own country and not be present at the battle, since, if the armies remained on the field, the men of either party might render assistance to their comrades if they saw them losing. [4] Having agreed, the armies drew off, and picked men of each side remained and fought. Neither could gain advantage in the battle; at last, only three out of the six hundred were left, Alcenor and Chromios of the Argives, Othryades of the Lacedaemonians: these three were left alive at nightfall. [5] Then the two Argives, believing themselves victors, ran to Argos; but Othryades the Lacedaemonian, after stripping the Argive dead and taking the arms to his camp, waited at his position. On the second day both armies came to learn the issue. [6] For a while both claimed the victory, the Argives arguing that more of their men had survived, the Lacedaemonians showing that the Argives had fled, while their man had stood his ground and stripped the enemy dead. [7] At last from arguing they fell to fighting; many of both sides fell, but the Lacedaemonians gained the victory. The Argives, who before had worn their hair long by fixed custom, shaved their heads ever after and made a law, with a curse added to it, that no Argive grow his hair, and no Argive woman wear gold, until they recovered Thyreae; [8] and the Lacedaemonians made a contrary law, that they wear their hair long ever after; for until now they had not worn it so. Othryades, the lone survivor of the three hundred, was ashamed, it is said, to return to Sparta after all the men of his company had been killed, and killed himself on the spot at Thyreae.

As is had been a Spartan custom, as it seems, to send 300 men to battle against another 300 men, could it be that the Persian king refused to "play by the rules" stipulated through ancient Spartan battle practice, and instead sent his entire force against the small Spartan contingent?

EDIT: It should be mentioned that my knowledge of ancient Greece is very spartan (ha, ha!) and thus I might be asking a question that has an easy answer, maybe even in the same book as I have not read it through yet.

Why is Italy so developed despite not having the extent of benefits from colonization that the aforementioned nations have had?

For example, I look up the author before reading to see their background, which can influence them in several ways. Another tactic I use is looking at the sources an author uses and determining what bias can look like in them. What other questions help to root out bias in a text?

ive heard the purepecha are decedents of a chichimec tribe, but why didn't the speak nahuatl?..does that prove a south american origin?

how come there mythology and culture differs from the rest of Meso america?

Are the current inhabitants of michoacán descendants of the purepecha ?

Basically, what I wrote in the title.

Why was there seemingly only one history writer during that time and area, named Herodotus? Was he the only one who was seemed prestigious enough to be preserved or was writing down history really something which nobody really thought of during that time?

So I picked up History of Rome on Spotify, and it's been fun because while I love history, I'm not well versed in the ins and outs, but anyway..

So the tales of Romulus and how he single-handedly created Rome, if it was written in a book and published, it might tempt someone, and then that person moves on to believe all the tales of Romulus and how he did it all himself, as opposed to the second half of the Spotify episode, in which the narrator talks about it being a morphing of many many people into one, to make it an easy tale to tell. Who did this? Romulus. Who did that? Romulus. Who do I talk to about this? Romulus.

So with that said..How do I trust a book or source of education if I'd be going into every read doubting the truth behind it, especially when you get to a certain era, and a lot of it becomes a game Chinese whispers, because Rome, Ancient Greece, and early Shogun Japan are very much my favorite times in history to read little factoids about, but it's a lot of hearsay so that's why I'm posting here.

How do you read a book and trust in it? Do I have to adjust and go in with the mindset of "what I may come to know as a fact may be wrong in a few years."

Thanks.

Basically the post claimed that Gandhi slept with his niece, was racist to black people and other stuff. Since I am from India, I have read a lot about Gandhi and these issues were not even mentioned in any of the textbooks prescribed to us. Plus, I have read his autobiography, which contains some controversial parts (like the time he almost let his offspring die instead of feeding him non-vegetarian food as a doctor had suggested), but nothing too extreme. So, has Gandhi's history been whitewashed or is he a victim of false and baseless accusations?