I want to go to grad school. My current college (also in my hometown) offers a transatlantic history masters and PhD, otherwise I’d have to go out of state for another program (which I really don’t want)

I really like Latin American history, but I’m also interested in how African cultures interacted with European/Native American populations. Honestly, Atlantic history seems to merge a lot of interesting fields without having to specialize on one region or period. That’s very appealing to me.

That being said, a lot of historians have criticized the emerging research field of “transatlantic” or “atlantic” history.

I have a background in economics and will be learning to speak French soon (already fluent and a very strong writer in both Spanish and English)

Thoughts on whether this is a worthy endeavor?

Of course steel, and aluminum, what other minerals and elements were necessary for the war effort at this time, and what were they used for?

For example I've heard Germany experienced shortages of chromium, tungsten, bauxite, zinc and lead, and I assume many of these are steel additives, but what about stuff like bauxite and tungsten?

What are the most important raw resources for industry at this time period?

Any good texts/docs you can link?

How many of them "drank the Kool aide" so to speak and believed up until the very end they were gong to win? Did any hope that Hitler would've seen the futility of continuing the war and surrender or seek negotiated peace?

A lot of people all over the internet seem to have very strong opinions regarding this book; they either love it or hate it, although i tend to see more of the latter. But why? From what I read, the book summed up in one sentence is "Geography determines destiny" and this makes a lot of sense to me. If you live in a place with the necessary resources to start an civilization, then your good, and those resources change over time, so different civilizations dominated the world at different times. So do historians not agree with this argument? Are they just being stubborn? Am I missing something from the book? I've read a lot of views on the book and I was hoping for just an overall summary of why so many scholars (or so called scholars) seem to hate this book.

Many many people take Babel literally. If we have documents that pre date it in a language other than Hebrew, it would disprove it as fact. What documents / tablets / artefacts do we have, if any that do that?

I hear a lot in songs like "The Yellow Rose of Texas" about "yellow" people, especially girls, and I know they are referring to light-skinned black/biracial people. But would Asians have also been thought of as having "yellow" skin, or would there have been a different idea as to what color they were? And were the two ever connected in any way?

When Ibn Battuta visited the Golden Horde in 1332 (ish) he wanted to travel further North to "the land of darkness" where a strange people with strange customs lived.

They would not trade for goods in person, instead going to an open place in the snow where southern merchants had left goods to trade. They would take these in the night and leave furs and other valuables for the southerners to pick up in the morning.

I have read about trade between Europeans and Native Americans being conducted in a similar way. My question is what kind of assumptions can we make about this behaviour, considering that both native Siberian and American populations were almost eradicated by disease.

Do we know if they had an understanding of disease transmission and that this was done for the same reason in both instances? Are there any other examples of this?

Thanks for your time and apologies for the awful description.

Was putting women up on scaffolds ever an actual practice? Does he mean it metaphorically? Or is it just a nonsense verse?

In Ancient Greece for example you get people like Socrates who's only called Socrates. But in Rome it seemed everyone had 2 names. So when did this happen?

What's the historical/theological context behind this? Why did they, as pagans, prefer pyres to burials? Or are these ideas myths perpetuated by mainstream TV?

Like tennis where some players have a massive dominant arm. But I've never heard/seen it really being noticeable with ancient warriors or it being mentioned.

In movies you often see archers running around or on horseback with a quiver with arrows on their backs. I'm wondering if this is an accurate depiction of how archers kept their quivers?

If so, how were the arrows kept in position while running/moving so violently?

What I think I kniw

There are prisoners that survived labor camps such as Auschwitz and you hear stories of some occasions where prisoners survived years in these camps, but i'm curious, in camps that where meant solely for extermination, how long could people survive on average, and are there any stories of people surviving extended periods of time?

Most modern governments keep records to make sure people are who they say they are, but they can only do this because of modern technology.

So, in the medieval world of Europe, what would stop, say a commoner, from claiming they were a visiting noble of another family and being treated as a guest of another noble?

Did nobles carry around pedigree papers or official insignias of their family's heraldry? If they did, what kept these from being forged?

Didn’t the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East have Christians too?