When I first read about the concept of historical revisionism, I first felt that the concept is quite positive on re-interpreting historical events with even better detailed evidence and information that challenges or re-interprets currently believed historical information that may not be as accurate as it was once believed (for example, I was told that Columbus discovered America but I later learned that he did not even set foot in America, or I was told that slaves built the pyramids of Giza but was later told that the pyramids were built by paid workers).

But whenever I encounter the word 'historical revisionist', I often encounter it as a pejorative or an insult towards those who really wanted to challenge current historical information from a biased point of view (like those who want to deny the existence of the Holocaust or those believe that the American moon landing was fake or the infamous book of Edward Gibson's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" that focused on the Classical Roman Empire but gave little attention to the Byzantine Empire)

But since that interpretation about historical events and other phenomena throughout history can possibly be updated with the exposure of newer and more detailed and verifieable information, why is the concept of historical revisionism treated with contempt in the historical community?

I'm researching on the reasons that led to Mao's victory in the Chinese civil war, and most sources I can find are unanimous in their assessment of the reasons for his victory. The only dissent against Mao I can find is 'Mao - The Unknown Story' by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, and that only aims to tear down Mao's reputation, not to point out other factors that would have aided Mao in victory against the KMT.

Are there any sources that provide an alternative assessment on Mao's victory?

If this is considered a homework question, please let me know. I'm doing this for a school research essay, but this is not the question I'm required to answer.

The Emperor Constantine decreed Sunday to be the Roman day of rest on March 7th 321, before that it was the day of the sun in the original 8 day Roman nundial cycle and in the 7 day week introduced by Emperor Augustus in the first century (which was not widely observed as the nundial cycle persisted for at least a few more centuries according to Valentinius’ Calendar of 354) but as far as I am aware it had no special meaning connoting rest or worship, outside of the sun cult within Roman religion. The only justification that I can find is from Saint Jerome, who said “If pagans call the Lord's Day the 'day of the sun,' we willingly agree, for today the light of the world is raised, today is revealed the sun of justice with healing in his rays” but Jerome was born 26 years after Constantine declared Sunday to be the day of rest, so what was Constantine’s reasoning for declaring the pagan day of the sun to be the day of rest, considering that he was a Christian? In Constantine’s declaration of the new day of rest he said “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.” But that does not give much justification at all. Furthermore, why did the Council of Laodicea in 363 explicitly prohibit the observance of the Saturday Sabbath? Where did the importance of Sunday to Christians first arise from?

My source is Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church: Vol. II along with the works of Saint Jerome, the Calendar of 354 and the Canons of the Council of Laodicea themselves. Please correct me if I’ve gotten anything wrong.

Many historical accounts seem to cite Islam's general prohibition of alcohol as the reason for Vladimir's choice, but were there any other reasons, possibly political or geographical in nature?

I know that Tamerlane viewed himself as a restorer of the old Mongol Empire during his conquests, despite having no relation to Genghis Khan.

Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, on the other hand was a maternal descendant to Genghis Khan as well as to Timur through his father.

Did Babur and the other Mughal Emperors view themselves as the same restored Mongol state that Timur viewed his empire as? Or did the Mughals view themselves as a completely new and separate state, detached from the empire of Genghis Khan?

With all the political turmoil going on at home, it would seem people would have alot to say about Caesar rampaging through Gaul, gaining allies and wealth, and using up Rome’s resources on what must have been a costly war. Did any prominent figures if the time have anything to say about this? Was his war popular, or frightening? Did the average person on the streets applaude the conquest, or did they even know about it as it was going on?

EDIT: I guess what I should be asking, to get more to the point I’m looking for- What sources do we have which describe contemporary Roman opinions of Caesar and his Gallic Wars?

Did this impact their views on the rest of Europe?

Germans lived outside of Germany, such as Alsatians in France, or Baltic Germans in Lithuania and Latvia. When these areas were occupied in WWII, were they given any special status as ethnic Germans, or simply lumped in among the rest of their countrymen? Did Germans in these areas support Nazi rhetoric?

Hey guys and gals just wanted yall to know this is now my new favorite sub. Spent a few hours on here just reading. Thanks for all the info. You guys rock!!

Hi everyone,

I am currently studying Jewish history and we've just finished the Holocaust unit. My professors lectures were relatively underwhelming and I am still puzzled by the years leading up to the Holocaust. My professor stressed that Hitler was not solely elected for his anti-semitism background, this much I agree with. However, I am confused on how we got to the point in 1941 where basically all Germans were fine with Jews disappearing. I know that many Germans were friends with Jews, but there's virtually no documentation of any sort of rioting, protesting, in terms of when the Jews started being relocated. How did Germany as a society get to the point of accepting Hitler's ideas towards the Jews? Of course propaganda was rampant, but what were the other factors? It's just so weird to me how a society that was doing so well with Jews in positions of power (Weimar period) can suddenly turn so fast on them and be accepting of the Nazi's plan. I would absolutely love for anyone to expand on how they got to that point or any further comments.

Hi all! The Age of Sail saw an apparent explosion of pirate activities around the world, like the infamous Golden Age of Piracy in the Caribbean, the Barbary corsair attacks along the European coast and the Jiajing wokou raids in China. One of the major hubs for world shipping in this era was the Indian coast, where various native kingdoms and European colonial powers vied for control. I know that Indian Ocean shipping was a major target for English pirates during the so-called Pirate Round portion of the Golden Age, but what about Indian pirates? Where did they set up their bases, who did they target, and how did their operations look like? Did they set up distant overseas bases like the European and Chinese pirates did? I'd be interested to hear about how state agents and institutions (like the Marathi admiral Kanhoji Angre) conducted maritime raiding as well. Thanks a lot in advance!

I have a limited understanding of the grand scale of WWII, but like a lot of people, I am fascinated with that era. What follows, and is the basis of my question, is built off what I've gathered, but it may be wrong on its face, and I apologize for that!

​

My understanding is D-Day proved a major turning point for the Allies. It was an enormous invasion that led to, about 10 months later, the end of the war in Europe. But what if the invasion had failed? I know there were substantial casualties as it stands, but D-Day was overall successful. If the Germans had been more prepared, and "held off" the invasion in the sense of delivering greater casualties, what would the Allies have done? Was the United States prepared to drop atomic bombs on Germany? Would Hitler have been successful in taking over Europe, or was his downfall inevitable long before D-Day?

​

Thank you in advance!

Obviously glad had been used since ancient Egypt if not earlier. But has it ever been used in warfare? Surely they knew the shards were sharp and could hurt somebody. I recall hearing about glass and clay shards being used in rudimentary grenades during the crusades but is that even true? Is there earlier examples? Would it be a stretch to say that it could be fairly impactful as say-an arrowhead?

This is a pretty short and simple question - but I've had difficulty finding information about this but it seems a pretty interesting topic. What sorts of organized crime organizations such as mafias existed in the Eastern Bloc (satellites and the USSR) before the collapse?