I often encounter people decrying how ideology impedes scientific progress, often citing dubious examples (i.e. Bruno, Hypatia, Galileo). However, the recent and really straightforward example of Lysenkoism, with very real practical consequences and plenty of scientists put to death and incarcerated, is pretty much unheard of. Why?

I'm reading "When Titans Clashed" for the first time. It seems to have a pretty good reputation from what I understand, but are there areas where other historians disagree significantly? Does Glantz have any hobby horses that I should watch out for?

I'm assuming it wasn't the case of someone inventing a better tactics - don't want to be that guy who think line infantry fought the way it fought in 18th century cause they were too dumb to crouch or hide.

Something happened that made wall of shields and spears less effective. What was it?

The Wikipedia entry for the Scottish warship "Great Michael" says she was built "to support a Scottish crusade against the Ottoman Empire to reclaim Palestine for Christendom" before Scotland's treaty with France necessitated that she be used for the war against England.

As far as I'm aware, the last crusade was in 1271. What inspired this latest effort nearly 250 years later? Beyond building the largest warship afloat for the endeavor, how seriously was it considered?

Are there still surviving sub-species of what would later evolve into the Homo-genus or did they all go extinct? If so, when?

This has been bugging me for a while. Thanks in advance :)

Hey, I'm curious as to how many of you, who got their doctorates in history, followed an unusual path to it - coming from other areas unrelated to history - as opposed to the more traditional path (i.e., history undergrad/master's).

I'm at a point in my academic career (B.A. in psychology, MsC in Neuroscience) where a fully funded PhD in Neuroscience has been pretty much guaranteed to me - but I'm having a few doubts about whether I actually want to be a Neuroscientist. I've come to realize that, more than the science aspect of my chosen topic (drugs and psychopharmacology), I'm more interested in how those have developed and changed society, and how they were treated in the past. I've always loved history (actually thought about doing my undergrad in it, but ended opting for Psychology) and have a pretty good idea of what I'd like to do a thesis on.

So I'm curious as to how viable a change in fields would be, and what would be the outcomes. Of those who took weirder paths to their PhD in history, how many of you ended up staying in academia? And those who didn't stay, what do you do nowadays?

Sorry for any weird confusing language - English isn't even my 3rd language :)

Thanks :)

I have some strong disagreements with the author theologically but I'm really looking for a good book on Christian history.

In that book he is the dumbest man of the Han. How could he ever have gotten to such a position? Was he really that incompetent in history too?

Conrad II, the first Holy Roman Emperor of the Salian Dynasty, first began with the titles of the County of Speyer and the County of Worms, then he became the Emperor in 1027. Where was his seat? What about the successive Emperors, especially Heinrich III and Heinrich IV?

I read an offhanded comment in a post today which noted that a couple of Reddit threads which addressed a similar question to OPs were a bit old, but that the third link was recent and a good read. That got me wondering. Those 'old' answers were obviously younger that this sub, and they're already losing authority.

Is influencing those who come after the best that any historian can realistically hope for while writing in his time?

Do you have to accept that certain things you write about, and terms or phrases you use, are going to sound bigoted or prejudiced in a few decades, in areas you have no reason to suspect society will become sensitive to?

I've been in a weird craze of editing wikipedia pages, specifically the portuguese pages. But when it comes to History, I try to follow the strict guidelines about providing good and reliable sources. Which is pretty hard! We don't really have a lot of academic historians to help around, and in general, we don't have a lot of anonymous volunteers like the English Wikipedia.

One thing that is kind of common knowledge is that the historians in Brazil are pretty left-leaning. I tried to find some of the books they use, and a lot of it is about class struggle. Now, don't get me wrong, I know some of it is valid, but when most of the bibliography is talking about that, we have a bias. Basically, I'm trying to bring different views in the sources, so as to maintain the neutral point of view in the article.

I've been poking around with Google Books and Scholar Google for now, but that's about it. I'm in a small college for IT, History is more of a hobby. I just want to help my fellow brazilians, and by extension, all the lusophones, with more in-depth knowledge, but help them not only with sources in english, which I can simply copy-paste, but also sources in portuguese.

His head was known to have been placed on a spike above Westminster Hall. Then it fell off, supposedly in a storm during the 1680s and went missing, leading to a ridiculous sounding hunt for the head.

How was this reported in London? What were people saying about the head? What was the full summary of the official orders for the recovery of the head? Is it a topic of discussion in any diaries from the age?

Did anybody declare themselves a dedicated head hunter, to claim the reward for the head? How many people presented fraudulent heads in an attempt to claim the bounty for themselves? How did nobody climb Westminster Hall and claim the head for themselves before this happened, considering it had been up there for some 20 years?

The whole thing sounds pretty hilarious to me because it is so ludicrous. I almost think you could make an incredibly dark comedy out of just how silly the whole thing sounds centuries on.

I'm not entirely certain this falls under the domain of the sub, but not really sure where else to ask. I'm writing a character(super hero) who styles herself after shield maidens, but I'm stuck trying to find a balance between cool and real.

What sources would you direct a 19ish year old girl towards if she asked you about vikings, fighting manuals, armour and costume, shield maidens, valkyrie, patheon, or women's place in general? I've looked but find myself lost in academia almost immediately, and being so verbose, I feel she would not be able to make sense of it.

Thank y'all in advance~

Historians of Reddit I am curious to know how historians view the life and actions of the man known as Jesus Christ. Obviously I have heard myriad things about Jesus through the bible, however the bible is obviously a flawed text when it comes to historical truths. It is my understanding that Jesus did in fact exist, but other than that I really don't know anything about historical (not religious) Jesus. Thank you for all of your help!

I'm from Upstate New York, where lacrosse is a big sport in no small part because of its popularity with the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois).

How/Why did lacrosse become so popular among the European immigrants, when so many other aspects of Native cultures were suppressed?

What allowed lacrosse to evolve into a major college and professional sport?

Why is it the only(?) Native sport to have broad popularity in America, alone among a host of games with European origins and traditions? (Football, golf, baseball, etc)

So I've been looking at the platform, and especially looking at the points more oriented towards labor, such as 14 and 16, which the Nazis went back on and kept delaying (as well as purging the leftist faction of the party almost immediately after taking power). Others, relating to revoking citizenship for jews and the push for leibensraum, are well-documented. What other points from the original platform were executed or ignored after the party took power?

To be a little more specific, I'm looking to learn more about the influence of these communities (specifically Therapeutae) on early Christian desert monasticism.

I'm gonna crosspost to /r/AcademicBiblical for good measure.

Any help is appreciated!

P.S. I haven't been earning my Interesting Inquirer flair lately, AH, but I'm lurking....watching, always watching....

[deleted]

TYIA

It seems the village songs of the past 400 years (sorry for lack of a better descriptor, please educate me) of Western Society have mostly fallen from common memory, despite being well recorded. Mozart and Chopin are readily known, so what happened to these songs that they've fallen out of mass favor?

And as an aside, do you fine researchers at r/askhistorians have any examples of music that really encapsulates what it was like for these villagers (again, sorry). I find musical tradition as a facet of society fascinating, but I have no idea where to begin.

You're the best r/askhistorians!

Hope I'm not breaking any rules here, but having seen the film many times, I can't help but wonder if it's at all accurate even in the slightest from a socioeconomic standpoint?

My great-grandmother's family, the Tsakgalou's, were living in Constantinople during the Greek/Armenian Genocide. While conducting research into my genealogy over the last 10 years, I've heard the Greeks from that region referred to as being Anatolian and Pontic. Is there a difference between the two terms? Would Greeks from Constantinople have belonged to one or the other?

For what its worth, I had my grandmother (who just turned 90 btw) take a DNA test a few years ago. She came out as being 75% Greek, 12% Eastern European, 6% Caucasus, 3% Middle Eastern, 1% Western European, and 1% European Jewish.