If you are just getting started digging into a brand new subject, how do you determine which monographs to read? I have been tasked with reading a handful of monographs of my choice, but they are supposed to be the "heavy hitters" of their subject matter, having changed or still changing the way their sub-field is seen.

Also, where do I even find these monographs?

Sorry that this is so basic.

In "20,000 Leagues," Verne makes Conseil (a Dutchman) say of Ned Land, "The lack of wine, bread, and meat is an affront to the dignity of an Anglo-Saxon." This is meant to highlight the exclusively maritime nature of fare on the Nautilus. Why is aversion to seafood racially coded and what were the Dutch and the French eating in 1868?

The quote appears on p. 139 of the Miller and Walter 1993 translation, if that matters to anyone.

I'm not sure how to best phrase the question. I've looked through some of the previous links and though today's Monday Method's from u/sunagainstgold gave some help in finding sources, JSTOR reviews, and most recent releases, I don't think it get to what I'm looking for.

I'm currently reading Paris Reborn by Stephane Kirkland and I came across a small footnote. "*In this area, the ill-informed writings of Walter Benjamin especially have done considerable harm to the historical record." The paragraph in question is regarding the oft-cited theory (perhaps it is Bejamin's theory) that the wide streets of Second Empire Paris were created "primarily to allow troop movements against the people and unencumbered cannon fire."

This is what I thought was the reason why Haussmann widened the streets. In that chapter, Kirkland goes on to say that lots had to do with sanitary reasons, the poor, and easy access to the train stations for goods as well as people. Sure, perhaps Kirkland is enamoured with Haussmann but perhaps this is the correct view. I don't know better despite reading lots of French history and taking courses, etc.

This got me thinking about how am i to know between many possible historiographies? Is it squeakier wheels? Would I then have to go to primary sources? But surely, Benjamin (sorry to M. Benjamin if it's not his theory) also had primary sources. Do we then see which sources were used by whom? But I don't have time for this; I'm not a graduate student with access to primary sources or time to go through them all. How best to confront possible dubious historiographies?

Off the top of my head I can think of a few other instances where this may have already happened and has been remedied, such as with Richard III---or rather, I am led to believe that since I've read that Shakespeare was one of the culprits of his vilification. Perhaps, Napoleon, based on a predominantly English backed interpretation of his life, etc. Or any number of Roman leaders who's actions were mentioned in writings.

Despite having a minor in History and reading predominantly history I find that i am still susceptible to believing what i read.

Is there an easier way to know that I'm reading misinterpretations or that I'm reading something that is causing 'considerable harm' to the record?

How do I know if more recent historical study is better than theories that have been around for many many eyars?

How do I know what historical harms are made and how do I correct them?

How do amateurs of history know when a misinterpretation has been committed?

How do I not get caught up in adhering to the most recent thesis that i've read?

I hope I have explained myself well enough

For example: there’s the USS Carl Vinson and then the HMS Vengeance and HMS Victorious, and HMS Agamemnon. Why do American ships have such measly names?

[deleted]

After WWII, when millions of men aged 18-40ish from countries across the globe had been killed (or disabled to the point where they couldn't work/care for a family), leaving hundreds of thousands of unsupported or single women and widows, how was that handled? Was being a single woman just "the thing" for awhile?

How did countries like China and the USSR deal with having such a heavy blow dealt to their prime workforce?

I'm interested in the Fall of the Roman Empire, and was wondering about the causes.

First, how common were civil wars in each period of Rome's history? How effective were the usurper 'Barracks Emperors'? How fair would it be to say that the lack of solidarity in these commanders weakend the Empire?

Overall, what were the most influential reason for the empires demise?

I've been researching the subject and found that the effectiveness of the military didn't really decrease, so I turned to the subject of leadership. Am I on the right track in looking for issues with Rome among her generals and Emperors'!

[deleted]

[deleted]

So we've had this parchment document for a while. My father purchased an old letter writing chest a while back and this parchment was inside with a whole bunch of letter and cheques also dating back a couple of centuries . He seems to think the parchment is m an old deed. It has a date pointing back to the 1600's. Does anyone know what this is and what it says? My dad would love to know! Thanks in advance!

I'm thinking specifically of armor, clothing, and castles in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, but I've noticed this in other medieval chronicles/ illuminations.

(I'm sure the question itself is anachronistic, but I'm curious exactly why.)

I am not asking when time zones started. Rather, when did people that if it is day time in one region of the planet, it is night time some where else? Was this known before trains or motorized transportation? If so, how?

Any*

Trying to find the speeches of the Brothers Gracchi? Where do I find them?

They acknowledge a lot of what they do get wrong in their 'lies' videos, but is there anything particularly glaring they've ever missed out of any of those?

I love the narrative focus they tend to present in, although as someone aware of Natalie Zemon Davis' exploits I'm not sure how much stock should be put into the historicity of it all

"Civilization would end if MAD was triggered" is a common enough trope but, actually, that mostly means the northern hemisphere, as the nuclear powers. I've not seen anyone mention, even in fiction, what strikes there would be against the regions in the title barring European/US colonies. The trope comes from the Eurocentric/US-centric view of everything, I suppose.

Was there any nuclear power with a sort of "let's drag everyone down with us" kind of MAD mentality? Or would regions be struck to deny it to other powers, such as USSR/USA striking Latin America and Africa to deny it to each other? Especially after the US-led coups in Latin America, I could see the USSR doing something of the sort. And before them, I could see the US doing the same thing as the region did lean towards socialism. Question is, were there plans at all?

[deleted]