As a follow up, what strategies did you develop to find gaps in the literature that you thought your research could address, while still finding areas of history that have had enough written about them to inform your research?

Did they belong to pagans or did 1st century CE Jews use pigs for some non-meat related purpose? The story is in all three synoptic gospels so presumably this isn't an error made by a later gentile author.

EDIT: For anyone else planning on writing a short-lived comment about how the the gospels aren't historical sources, think about what I'm actually asking. The synoptic gospels were written (as far as we know, and assuming I'm not out of date on the historiography) in the mid to late 1st century by Greek-literate Jews living in Judea. If there was a story about pigs in them, this implies that it would have been plausible to these Judean authors, which implies that there were pigs in (or near!) Judea at the time. The historicity of the demon-casting itself is irrelevant.

As stated in the title from after the Great trek in 1836 the Boers wanted to govern themselves and were dissatisfied with British rule. Why did the British keep on insisting on ruling over people who went to such lengths to escape their rule?

Hello! I'm interested in the European colonization of the Americas during the time roughly 1500-1600. I can't seem to finde a comprehensive and accurate map of the territories owned by Spain, Portugal, France and Britain. Does anyone have reliable sources? I'm especially interested in North America (France, Britain). The maps could be historical or modern. But I think maps are the best way to understand this question. Thanks in advance for your help!

I often hear people say that the people who fought for the Confederacy were just poor farmers only trying to preserve their way of life. I usually see this statement made as a reason to honor Confederate soldiers in modern times. Is there any proof that the average Confederate soldier supported the racist anti-black rhetoric pushed by Confederate leadership?

Any responses would be very helpful in my understanding of this difficult topic!

I know they had some sort of priestesses that were expected to remain virgins and punished with death if they didn't, but in day to day life what was considered beyond the pale when it came to making fun of their gods or not honoring certain traditions etc? Did they take it seriously or consider it more of a personal matter? Were there any punishments set down?

[deleted]

Properly speaking, the United Kingdom is the state including England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland/Northern Ireland, while Britain is England, Scotland and Wales (though often still used for the whole state). It can be a little jarring to read older authors and find they often use "England" for the state.

Was this simply a kind of English nationalism (invading and wiping out the other countries)? How and when did this usage change?

As a bonus question, what was the process like in other countries? (eg. usage of "Angleterre" vs "Royaume-Uni")

Hi all, I've wondered for years how common it is for monolingual Anglophone historians to work on non-Anglophone histories. My history tutor at university, for instance, does not know Armenian or Turkish, yet partially specialises in the Armenian Genocide. He told me that when he went to archives in Turkey, he had a research assistant to translate. How common is this?

Some context to my question: I am hoping to embark on a PhD in history in the next few years, and am most interested in 20th century European history, but I live in Australia and only speak English. Thanks in advance!

Given how expensive repeating arms like the Henry and even Spencer rifle were, was it even feasible for the North to have adopted anything but the Springfield Rifle Musket during the Civil War? I'm already aware of Stanton's(?) decision to turn down breechloading and repeating arms because of concerns over ammunition supply, but I haven't been able to nail down a concrete answer over whether the North could actually have kept large units supplied with enough ammunition to allow more rapid fire. As far as I know, the North already had significant challenges funding the war and supplying troops in the field, and potentially increasing ammunition consumption by 300% doesn't seem like something that could be easily done.

If you bought a slave at an auction in the south before the Civil War would you have to pay a tax on that purchase?

I will fully admit I am coming from a place of relative ignorance here but my uninformed understanding is that sometime following WWII, the U.N. created the state of Israel. My question is why. Was it just so western nations could have an ally in the region? Why is it a traditional ally of the U.S. and other western nations? And what happened to the people who claimed that territory already? I am assuming the creation of Israel is only one part of the continual Middle East conflict, but didn't its sudden creation make a complicated situation infinitely more complex? Why would claiming that your ancestors owned the land thousands of years ago hold any weight in geopolitics?

I could be wrong, but as little as I know, Portuguese were first to drive in India. And last to leave. They've been here longer than any foreign colony. Yet I can't find books to help me explore that subject.

Almost done with my B.A. in social studies education. I love history and have wanted to teach it, I've wanted to do it since I was seven. But my god I have been designing lesson plans and I have come to realize that teaching is much more difficult than simply studying history. For anyone on this sub that is a teacher--secondary or otherwise, how do you all manage to teach the debates and information without being overwhelmed?