I’m wondering about both what period in history do actual records we can more or less trust start appearing and also at what point in your research you can say “here’s what really happened in this event.” Does that make sense?

I understand that nobody will ever really know exactly what happened down to the minute details and it’ll depend on region and culture.

(Seen with a picture on Facebook) I’m just curious as to if they were build to attempt to see if trains could travel through water or if the water covered them later?

After all, this has been the dream of generations of Crusaders in the Middle Ages. And even though Europe was less religious in 1917, it was still quite religious compared to today

I’m interested in learning about the military history and strategic placement of fortifications by the American Rebels. For example, Washington Heights was a battleground where General Washington fortified in anticipation of British Ships. What are streets and neighborhoods that we have now where those battles took place? Any other examples are welcomed and encouraged, New York or otherwise.

[deleted]

I’ve recently been reading Andrew Roberts’ “Napoleon”, and he seems to paint a very different picture of the Russian campaign from the only other account I really know of, Tolstoy’s. Roberts seems to believe the very thing Tolstoy called a myth, namely that the Russians lured Napoleon into the interior on purpose, when the truth is (according to Tolstoy at least) the Russians were just as eager for a decisive battle as Napoleon, but they kept being forced to retreat and burn their cities by circumstances beyond their control. So what do historians outside Roberts tend to think here?

I know this sounds broad, but allow me to elaborate. When examining the clothing of Celtic and migration-era Germanic peoples, it seems like the belt was worn over their tunics. However, we now wear the belt under our shirts (and directly over pants). Is it know what brought this about?

This narrative fits with the argument that I've seen that States were more appealing to the elite in non-state societies than to the average barbarian as non-state peoples were more free and healthier.

But is that really the case in every known example?

[deleted]

Its an often said that during most of the war the Trenches and fortifications of the Western front ran from the Channel to the Swiss border. However the vast majority of action occurred in the Northern parts of the front, the Somme, Flanders etc and nothing much further South than Verdun which is only about halfway between the Channel and Swiss border. I was wondering why this was the case as I can't find a satisfying justification, particularly towards the end of the war, when the arrival of American troops would surely have allowed the allies the numbers for wider allied action.

I recently read somewhere that the seventies were so dangerous to live in and crime has reduced since then. I understand that there were a lot of serial killers then ie Manson, Zodiac Killer etc. But why did all of this crime suddenly explode? Wasn't the previous decade all about peace and love?

It seems that around the 1400-1700s China was quickly falling behind Europe due to isolationist policies. Between the Ming and the Qing, which dynasty was more stagnate in terms of scientific and technological advancement?

[deleted]

I have never met a Disney. As far as I can google, there are fewer than 5,000 Disneys in the United States currently. I understand it is a bastardization of an Italian name, but it still seems strange to me that such a small percentage of the population have it as their surname. So what gives? Is it just a very uncommon name, or were people more willing to change it once Disney became big?

Did he have plans to expand his Empire west after conquering Persia or would he have gone straight to China?

I should note that I am researching for my personal benefit, rather than for a class or thesis, so I can take as long as I want.

So I am wanting to become better at researching and taking notes on books as I am reading, in order that I can retain information and gain a better sense of what each author has to say. For example, say I want to know as much as I can about the different views on George Washington, so I grab a couple biographies. Is going chapter by chapter of each and doing a short summary of each the best way to go about it? Or should I be more focused on methods like introduction, third chapter, conclusion to understand what each author has to say?

This is also somewhat related, but how do you memorize dates, names, and places? Does it come from just reading constantly about your topic, or do you take time to memorize the information specifically? All advice is welcome!

• A struggling amateur researcher.

I often wonder how, when and why some historic names like "Cristobal Colon" became "Christopher Columbus" in another language..

Did they translate names back then? Did it happen later on as historians from other countries started to keep and develop records of him?

He's just a good example, but I feel that the practice of translating names was very common and it's not anymore.

Best regards!

Did Americans not see Italians as the inheritors, or at least analogues, of Roman identity?

This also applies to a lesser extent to anti-Greek sentiment.

title edit: *has there