More specifically, I'm interested in something that tells sort of a general world history, but keeps a very Euro-Centric view. While I'd like to keep the main focus on Europe, I'd like to know about the situations of the other countries that Europe interacts with and imperailises, wars with and creates into their spheres of influence.

Alternatively, I'm very interested in this period basically everywhere, so something telling the history behind the eventual unification of Japan and its rise to great power status, the massive turmoil in America in its civil war and new mass industrial era, the sporadic and tumultuous Qing empire, etc, it all very much interests me. I would very much appreciate recommendations on books covering this period so I can understand more about the way the world was during this time; I hope to study and receive my degree in this area of focus.

Although they never had a successful settlement, Spain had a siginificant exploritory presence in the West Coast of Canada. There are a large number of Spanish place-names especially in the Gulf Islands/Vancouver Island, yet most people I've spoken to have no idea the Spanish Empire had ever been anywhere near the lands of what is now present day Canada. Is there any reason why the Spanish influence on British Columbia this isn't more widely known?

It seems like really illogical design decision, especially since Commonwealth armies never really bothered with accommodations for left handers

I hope this is the right place to ask this question, but if it's not, feel free to remove it (but suggestions for where to ask would be appreciated). I'm currently an international student doing an MA in history and have the opportunity to travel to various places during my degree (won't mention where I am specifically).

When a lot of people travel, they stick to a few basic activities - wandering around a city, eating, getting drinks, outdoors stuff, shopping, the occasional museum visit... etc. I'm wondering if historians in general travel a different way - do you generally do a lot of research before visiting a certain place so that you don't miss out on truly interesting things that are related to the place's past? How would you go about finding interesting and less tourist-driven things to see or do before embarking on the trip? Are there any specific places that you like to visit (e.g. parliamentary buildings, sites where certain treaties are signed even if there's nothing special about the place today)? And how do I learn to travel smarter? I'm bored of getting recommendations from tripadvisor.

I read that Roman soldiers were partially paid in salt, so wasting it on some sort of revenge idea seems very unlikely.

I hope my question isn't off topic (if it is I'm sorry).

I am currently finishing a master's degree in History, and the time has come for me to choose a subject for my thesis. As a Middle Ages junkie, I want to focus on this period. A topic that interests me deeply is the way the Middle Ages are depicted in movies, TV shows, (fantasy) novel etc. What stereotypes/representations are used, are they historically accurate, if they are not, why do they succeed in evoking the Middle Ages in the audience's mind, etc.?

However, I don't know where to start my research, hence my question. Do you know of any monograph or article(s) that have been published on this topic?

Thank you very much!

Hi there! I suppose that PTSD is something that has always been present in humans so I was curious if, in one form or another, it was recognized and in some way also treated. Thanks!

Elements of the Arkansas National Guard were called out by Governor Orval Faubus on September 4th, 1957, to prevent the Little Rock Nine black students from enrolling at the all-white Little Rock Central High School in accordance with a federal court order. They kept day and night watch at the school until September 20th; at that point, city police took over the responsibility, but guardsmen remained on notice to deploy in the event of any disturbances.

On September 24th, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, and deployed elements of the 101^st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce the federal courts' orders and escort the black students into the school. The same elements of the Arkansas National Guard who had been preventing the Little Rock Nine from enrolling on the 19th were tasked with assisting the 101^st in escorting them into the school on the 25th; by the 30th, the National Guard had assumed full responsibility for that mission.

What was the guardsmen's reaction to this dramatic shift in their duties? Was there confusion among the troops, or was it a smooth transition? My understanding is that most of the enlisted and junior officers would likely have supported segregation - was there any notion of mutiny among the ranks? Was there concern that the Arkansas National Guard may have mutinied, and did that influence Eisenhower's decision to send the 101^st to ensure compliance?

I don’t know what the war was called or if it was still going on at the start of the Arab conquests.

Sorry if this is a silly question. Italy comes from the name of a region near Calabria and was expanded by the Romans to refer to the whole peninsula up to the Alps, but what was the entire peninsula called before that? I've heard Hesperia/Esperia, but can't find any source to prove it. Thanks for any answers.

It seems like such a huge risk to take given how expensive war is. It was much more risky for the banks making the loans since they had no way to enforce the payments. All Edward III had to lose was his reputation and it might make it more difficult to secure loans in the future.

So why did the banks agree to make these loans?

If a party member just did what they were told and didn't show the slightest defiance or disagreement with Stalin, what is the probability they would have survived the purges?

Hey, just looking for some advice on books I should read if I want to get into military history in general, and the history of Russia and it's peripheries.