What do you do after finishing something interesting?

This may come across as a strange question, but I'm really curious what people do after finishing an interesting book. I love history and reading nonfiction but I find it hard to retain information when I rarely need to recall what I've read. Furthermore, none of my friends share my particular interest in history so I don't discuss my readings with anyone in person like I used to in school.

So what are some common ways to enhance your reading comprehension on your own?

Hello all. Unsure if this is the right sub. If it's not please redirect me.

I'm working on my bachelors and am going to be getting my masters in history. Just wondering what the difference between these degrees is

In the newest special from Louis C.K., he raises a point about religion, and that f.ex. in the year 3, nobody would go around thinking it was the year 3. So that got me thinking; what kind of time tracking did they use around this time? I would imagine that all nations/cultures had different systems, but was there a 'most popular' one?

The post-war economies of Axis powers(as well as Allied) were greatly helped by American initiatives like the Marshall Plan and the overall reconstruction of Japan during American occupation. How did the American people react to this spending? How did their government convince the people that it was in their national interest? Was there suddenly no resentment for the Japanese and German people anymore?

Many of us know about the many conflicts between the two great powers, from regional wars to the nuclear arms race to chess matches. But what about positive, cooperative moments... were there any?

They had the technology spears, an ample supply of matchlock firearms and contact with the Portugese. I've read several books where it says Oda Nobunaga used revolutionary firearms tactics to defeat Takeda calvalry but I never could find out what these tactics were. Was it something similiar to pike and shot or completely different? What sort of firearm tactics were employed if it wasn't similar to pick and shot?

How was the slave procured by the Crimean Khanate? How was they sold and transported to the Ottoman empire? Is there any consensus of how exstensive this trade was as in how many persons was sold? And also in what if any way was the Genoan Republic involved?

[deleted]

I know a little about him ($10 bill, Aaron Burr, Founding Father), but I'd like to impress the people I'm going with and make the viewing experience more enjoyable. Looking for his short stories, facts and tidbits that make for good conversation.

Thank you in advance. :)

The title is tongue in cheek, but the question is quite serious. Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo... those three I think of as titans of Renaissance art, and I can picture or name examples of their work, and have a general sense of their influence. Donatello though, even after Googling for what his famous works are, I still don't recognize any of them! When plumbing the depths of my knowledge, he is a Ninja Turtle, while the other three are artists who happen to also be Ninja Turtles.

So, if you were making a 'Big Four' of Renaissance artists, is he really such an odd-man out as my impression dictates? Is he simply one of the very talented artists produced by Italy in the period, but not one of the 'absolute greats'? Or is he just as much of a master as the other three immortalized in Testudic form, but unfortunately not as well remembered by the general public these days (and if the latter, why did he get comparatively forgotten?)?

Is it true that their trade continued long after America abolished slavery? Did they castrate their slaves? Was there an 80% mortality rate traveling to the Middle East?

What little I've heard about it has implied to me that it was a bloody and vicious affair, but I seldom hear it discussed. I'd appreciate some light on this, thank you!

Growing up in post-Apartheid South Africa history is sometimes a very difficult subject, especially the Great Trek. It became very politicized and to some extent romanticized during the Apartheid era as the government tried to them as the founding fathers of the country.

Part of the rhetoric used was that Shaka Zulu and his wars shortly before depopulated the area by either killing everyone in his way or forcing them to move North into what is now Zimbabwe. The trekkers therefore moved into unused and empty lands and did not steal it from the locals.

How truthful is such a claim?

Another claim is that where there were still people the trekkers bought the land legitimately and was double crossed and attacked by the same people they had arrangements with after they settled.

All of these is in some way to redirect the source of the conflict between black and white away from the whites in some way and lay the blame on the other party.

I was watching a interesting program about uncontacted tribes left in the world and it got be thinking as a White European, which was the last group of white people to be contacted by the outside world? or was it so long ago no one knows?

Hello all, recently I've become interested in Hellenistic culture. Aside from history my favorite subject is literature, specifically poetry. I was wondering if anybody in this sub could point me towards some sources, or books that include some Hellenistic poetry, or literally anything that closely resembles it. Thanks guys

Apologies if this goes against the sub rules, I did check and it seems to be fine, albeit slightly unusual.

Anyway, I have an archaeology/ancient history assignment where I have to compare whether mortuary practices were decided based on the living or ideas about death, but I am struggling to pinpoint the difference between mortuary practices and burial practices. Definitions indicate they are largely the same, although mortuary practices do not include cultural practices.

Can anyone provide an explanation for me?

EDIT:

So just for clarification, I am studying the practices of the Western Roman Empire, Medieval England, and I'm dabbling in either the Ancient Near East or Neolithic Paris (I haven't decided yet, but basically I would like one prehistoric option). I'm not seeking advice on this area, just on the definition of mortuary practices and how they differ from burial practices. For anyone curious I am currently writing about the differences in the choice of burial location, as the Western Roman Empire after the 1st century AD largely practiced inhumation outside of the city limits until Christianity became dominant in the 4th century (Twelve Tables), whereas Medieval England had urban cemeteries but also mass shared graves due to the plague. But again, this isn't the area I am seeking help.

From my point of view, the terms mortuary and burial practices appear to be largely the same, my only idea is that mortuary refers specifically to the way the body was treated (cremation, inhumation etc.), rather than the cultural rites and ideas that surround burial practices. I have checked my Webster's dictionary, several online dictionary's of varying quality (Free Dictionary, Dictionary, and the like), but I have been unable to find a concrete definition.

Media in general seems to depict a 'knight school' in a castle. How much training did knights actually have? For how long, and where?