The culture of Egypt and Mesopotamia/Levant have become the Mediterranean culture, so the term Mesoandean would make sense considering the similarities of the Incas and Aztecs?

Hello all! I have developed an interest in researching the history of asylums. Such as, what went on in them, famous patients. Things like that. However, finding accurate sources is difficult because there are so many fiction horror stories clogging up the search results I was wondering if anyone had some reliable sources where I could read about life in asylums during the 18oos and 1900s. It would be extremely appreciated!

I wonder whether this was considered a major shock or surprise at the time and whether historians consider it an unlikely outcome considering the setup?

Additionally what were the major factors that allowed a smaller English army (with less heavy cavalry) to defeat the larger French force?

How did dueling differ between, say, Austria and the United States?

Did it make a difference (in general) if the duel occurred in an aristocratic society vs a more "democratic" one? (Like in the difference between Russia and the UK)

And how much did illegality influence duels? Were the duelants more likely to kill each other if duels were legal?

Also, did the location of the duelants influence their preferred weapons? I have heard that most dueling pistols were smoothbore, but was there any group insane enough to use rifled barrels (and probably up the lethality of duels by quite a margin)

Sorry for the amount of questions crammed into one post, I just realized that I now essentially nothing about duels except the popular depictions. If wanted I can split it up into multiple separate posts

I always hear about how the early European explorers killed thousands of Native Americans from the diseases that they brought over, but how come I don't hear about Europeans dying from Native American diseases? Did it happen? If so, how large of an issue was this for early explorers

I was just mucking about on the internet this evening and stumbled upon a couple of articles which were debating how far historical records go. The general consensus was that recordings only date back about 5,000 years, but there was some disagreement raised to that idea as well. I would greatly appreciate the input of any historians as to the accuracy of the 5000 years notion, as well as any other information about early historical recordings. Thanks!

When Australia became a dominion in 1901, it chose to call itself the "Commonwealth of Australia", but when Canada became a dominion in 1867, it was called the Dominion of Canada and is now just "Canada". The term commonwealth is pretty old in English law, why wouldn't Canada use it?

This question, as you might have guessed, was spawned by a conversation over this past holiday weekend.

I realized that I don't have a very good grasp of the current state of history and historiography regarding the Reconstruction Period after the American Civil War.

Does anyone have some suggestions for where to start reading to get a handle on the current narratives regarding reconstruction?

When I was in high school more years ago than I want to admit, they more or less glossed over everything that happened between about 1865 and 1871.

When I was an undergrad getting a BA in history, the dominant narrative in the low-level survey courses on American history was the reconstruction failed because the Northern elites didn't really care very much about the rights of freed slaves in the first place -- which I realized at the time didn't quite pass the smell test, but since said course was a survey of the entire political, economic and social developments of the United States in the period 1865-1945, we spent about one lecture on reconstruction, so I didn't have occasion to give the matter too much thought at the time.

Now, though, in light of, um, current events, I find myself asking three questions, which I don't expect a comprehensive answer to, but would really like to have someone suggest a good place to start learning:

1. What was Reconstruction, really?
2. Can it correctly be said that reconstruction "failed"?
3. What is the current scholarly narrative around reconstruction's role in the creation power-war systems of race relations, and how has this scholarship changed and developed over the last several decades?

[deleted]

As in the Battle of Agincourt, where about a thousand French nobles died.

How were the Polynesians able to navigate between islands? Was there a network of trade between distant settlements or did they largely abandon venturing far out once they settled on an island?

The time period I'm interested in is 17th/18th century Europe. The Dukes of Prussia/Brandenburg at one point would have answered to the King of Poland and the Holy Roman Emperor as Prussia was in Poland and Brandenburg was in the HRE. What would happen if those two nations went to war?

The Hanoverian Kings of the UK were also Electors in the HRE, would the Kings of England be subordinate to the Emperor? How would the different authorities/sovereigns administrate the lands? The Seven Years War saw the UK and Austria at odds, how did that work?

I was wondering if the string of bearded presidents following Lincoln was about. Was this facial hair style a unique trait of the North (with the Tennessee born Johnson being the clear hairless outlier) or was it a generally popular style in the States? I so, did the popularity of a full beard originate in Europe, or if not, did it spread there? Thanks.

I know "Indian corn," tends to include more colors, but other than that, is it very different?

Glycemic index? Bred to be different?

If I go out and buy some cornmeal, am I eating something that is essentially the same as what native americans would have been consuming?

Mexican culture seems to put a great deal of emphasis on politeness, and I'm wondering if this is something that has come from the influence of Spanish culture, or if it developed independently as Mexican culture grew into its own.

I saw a post that said that The Church burned red and yellow eyed people because they thought they were demons. Are there any records of that? Or is it just a myth?

I asked this question of a theatre professor. He said he thought older men must have played these roles, but he had no proof or evidence to back this up. While I'm skeptical this could be true with no evidence (to my knowledge, that's why I'm asking here), I just don't understand how a 15 year old could have played Lady Macbeth or Queen Gertrude and be taken seriously.