A little context about the question-- I'm writing a book where the characters are loosely based on characters from Arthurian legend and, well, frankly my idealistic side shot ahead of me. I know very little about Arthurian legend and I've been trying to supplement my ignorance by reading wiki articles and encyclopedia entries. I've since come to the realization that I've underestimated the density of the subject and overestimated my ability to learn it rapidly and keep schedule. I'm likely to throw this project on the back burner until I feel comfortable enough with the subject. So, I'm looking for something old and thick. Ahem, to read, I mean. I know very little about King Arthur. I know the legend and the key figures but not in great detail. I know it has fishing lines in many different moats (plz don't crucify me). It has its place in history, mythology, and literature but I don't really have any idea where one ends and the other begins. What can I read to make me an expert --or at least sound like I have any idea what I'm talking about?

As a non-American watching and reading the news recently about people protesting against confederate statues, I realise I know absolutely nothing about this period in American history, apart from a very vague idea about slavery. What are some good books for beginners to educate themselves on this topic? Hope I'm in the appropriate sub for this question!

I'm looking for a broad geopolitical history Medieval Europe (~400-1400), in the spirit of Brendan Simms' Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy from 1453 to the Present. Can you recommend such a book?

Many thanks for considering my request. I will greatly appreciate any help you can provide.

Was the motivation for the US and Soviet (and to a lesser degree French and British) nuclear tests a way of advancing their understanding of nuclear technology and weaponry or was it an display of military power

Hello,

I graduated last year with my Bachelor's of Arts in History. I am six months way from graduating with my Master's of Education in Higher Education. I am also employed full-time at a university in a staff position.

I want to teach history at the college level at my place of employment as an adjunct.

I want to get my Master's in History. It has been on my radar for years and I only went with the M.Ed first for job security at my job. I also have an interest in potentially shifting gears later and teaching in the public school system.

My only thing is, it has to be an online program.

Can anyone point me in the right direction or possibly give me advice?

Thanks.

The Indian subcontinent would be referring to the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and maybe Bhutan.

To me, it seems to me like this region has all the necessary element needed to count as a continent.

• Clear natural barriers seperate it from the rest of Asia
• Distinct, but highly diverse cultures and history
• Large population (more than all of Africa, and more than twice as much as Europe)

In fact, I think it has a better claim as a continent than Europe, since the Indian subcontinent actually used to be its own continent when it detached from Africa.

Usually, when I read about most empires, the picture one gets is that they demanded political obedience and economically exploited their subject territories, but were not particularly interested in demanding religious conformity or adoption of their cultural norms. Over time this may have tended to happen (e.g., Roman territories adopting more and more Latin culture, Umayyad and Abbasid territories becoming increasingly Arabized and Muslim), but the Romans didn't quickly demand every Egyptian stop worshiping Osiris^1 (nor did their Persian or Macedonian predecessors), the Umayyads were not eager to have the Egyptian rapidly convert to Islam, the Mongols were largely indifferent to whether their subjects were Tengriist or Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim, etc. The British didn't try to end Hinduism. Even the Crusader States, in spite of being explicitly justified by Holy War in their inception, don't seem to have been particularly interested in converting their Muslim or other non-Catholic subjects to Roman Catholicism en masse.

The Early Modern Spanish seem to be something of an exception -- at least, after about the Alhambra Decree^2. When they conquered, they usually demanded that their new subjects quickly adopt Catholicism. Aztecs were expected to very rapidly give up Huitzilopochtli for Jesus, etc.

How unique were the Spanish in this respect? Were there many other empires which attempted to impose the degree of religious conformity on freshly conquered territories that the Spanish did?

(Note: I am not 100% confident of all of the assertions I am making, but I am not trying to perpetuate a Black Legend framework of the Spanish empire. Religious tolerance is not the be-all, end-all of humanity or decency. The Mongols were religiously tolerant, but that doesn't necessarily mean their empire was more humane than that of the Spanish.)

1. I realize that this changed around the time of Theodosius with actual bans on all pre-Christian religions (whether it was the pre-Christian faith of Italy, Egypt, or wherever), but this was rather later in the empire, not during initial conquests.

2. Although prior to this they seem to have come closer to following the more common imperial practice in the form of convivencia

I'm not sure if this is where to ask, but it just popped into my head and figured this is where to ask if any.

I'm interested in the Spanish Civil War, but would like to know its deeper history before I learn more about it. I just picked up "Imperial Spain: 1469-1716" but can't seem to find any histories that continue the timeline. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!

I am a historian, but this isn't my area of specialization. I was hoping some folks here could make some recommendations of books where I might learn more about Maria Theresa, Joseph II or Habsburg family. I see that there is a book on the Habsburgs in the list, but it is on a later period that I'm looking for.

Thanks!

I've started to see this more and more in WW2 movies and TV shows, such as Band of Brothers and Fury.

I was curious to know how true this was, for both German women and other European women (polish, dutch) etc or was it more of a forced sexual encounter/prostitution for food and goods?

This is a non political question. Has the hammer and cycle historically been seen as more acceptable than the swastika?

AskHistorians, I need your help.

University starts again in a month and I’ve got virtually no idea what I want to do my dissertation on. All I know is that I most likely want to do something in the 20th – 21st centuries, but that’s it. It seems that at the worst possible time I’ve almost become somewhat burnt out on history and have no burning scholarly interests at the moment.

How did you come to decide on your own topic? i.e. what kind of soul-searching did you undertake, what kind of reading did you do, and so on. I’ve tried reading around to see if anything catches my fancy but I’ve hit a wall and could really do with some guidance. Thank you!

I heard about John Murray Spear and his attempt to build a "New Motive Power", so I was curious, what is the history of what we would roughly call "the paranormal" (by which I mean things like aliens, UFOs, ghosts, cryptozoology, ancient aliens, ESP, etc.) in Western thought?

When did they become the paranormal for that matter? When did we start breaking up the world into natural and supernatural in such a way that there could exist a place for the paranormal and when did certain content fill the place of the paranormal?

How have groups promoting the paranormal changed over time? What in-depth studies have been done on them? What have their key moments been?

My apologizes if this has been already discussed. I was trying to recall what exactly Abraham Lincoln wanted to do regarding on how to deal with the South after the Civil War. Were there any specific plans worked out or were there only a general idea? Andrew Johnson implemented his own idea of how to reconcile the South with the Union - how similar and different from Lincoln's plan or intent was Johnson's plan?

Disclaimer: I hope I was able to get across what I'm trying to ask about, my apologies for any grammar confusion.

Looking at a map of James Cook's third voyage on Wikipedia, he makes a fairly straigtforward path to the Hawaiian Islands. Did he have some foreknowledge that the islands existed and their rough location? Was he just lucky?

Firstly this is not political but with all the events in America its peeked my interest in the subject. I'm also British so we never got taught the civil war in great detail. But from what I gathered is that Robert Lee was opposed the war in the first place and that he nearly lead the Union armies. I have also heard he was against slavery and emancipated his slaves. Is any of this true? small follow up If it is true why did he became the face of Southern spirit and not someone like Jefferson Davis?

Someone made a post on r/politics stating they were a museum director and gave this piece of non-cited information:

the overwhelming majority of these statues were mass produced and of completely shitty quality, and farmed out to dozens of municipalities in the 20th century as both anti-black monuments and fundraising tools for "white pride" groups like the KKK or the Daughters of the Confederacy.

Do we have any books, articles, primary sources on this part of our history?