As the title states, I'm new to the graduate world of academia and, while I did three research theses to finish my undergrad, I am still interested to know how others determine their research questions. I'm feeling a bit of imposter syndrome (though I'm thankful I at least recognize it as such) and struggling to imagine how I, the newbie, could possibly find something someone else hasn't thought of yet. Do you just find something interesting and keep digging? Thanks for your input.

I don't buy into the idea that blacks and southern Europeans are less intelligent than whites and northern Europeans mostly because I know some very smart black people. Yet I keep wondering if intelligence has something to do with the success of northern european countries because virtually every country that is, or is of northern european heritage is a successful stable democracy. Asian countries flucuate, South American countries have big economies but a lot of poverty, Africa is a mess, etc. Africa can't just be a mess due to colonization, because Africa was extremely primitive during the middle ages. I mean even in the middle ages Europe was lightyears ahead of the curve. China had a stint being ahead of everyone, but that seemed to die out after the Mongols came. Why have the Northern Europe countries for the most part been so successful economically, technologically, militarily, and stablility wise?

The stereotypical Allied attack during WWI involves soldiers charging at German machine guns, inevitably dying. What were the most effective (least casualties, more territory conquered) tactics used to counter the threat of machine guns?

Can anyone recommend a few good books on the early part (before 1600) of the French Calvinist/Catholic conflicts? I'm especially interested in:

• Catholic and Hougenout beliefs and daily life in comparison to each other

• Catherine de Medici and her time as regent

• An easy timeline or overview of the conflicts - major turning points, battles, political events etc. - still before 1600.

Thanks in advance!

So recently I have been debating with some fascists and communists. The communists will deny that Mao knew he was killing 40 million people and the Nazis will say that the Holocaust either didn't happen or is only half as bad.

I'm sure that there is some truth to say that the Jews may have exaggerated a bit, but the Nazis still gased and killed millions and millions of Jews. The most common argument I hear is "the Jews forged the evidence". What are some of the more legitimate and serious arguments that the holocaust didn't happen? I find it hard to see how anybody could deny it when there are millions of people who survived it, and millions of people who witnessed it first hand when the Third Reich came crashing down.

[deleted]

Maybe this should be in r/askscience because I wasn't sure if this was an evolutionary biology question or maybe something that could be answered from a historical/anthropological perspective. I'll move it if I'm in the wrong place

I was learning about the Wright Brothers and I wondered why the first planes didn't have wings that would flap. You would think that humans would naturally try and mimic a bird's wings, so why were the first plane wings stationary?

The migration from Siberia to the Americas took about 15 000 years, would the journey just be lost to time at that point?

I know this question covers a long period of history. They often are covered in world history in the US during the 1400s but largely disappear from the history books into the 1500s and 1600s.

What events led to their general disappearance as other European powers rose and spread across the Western Hemisphere?

Did the groups that migrate from Eurasia to the Americas maintain contact or resume contact with Eurasia (and the Pacific) before Columbus? In particular:

• Did the Yupik of Alaska know there were people speaking a similar language on the other side of the Bering? If so, for how long? Was it constant since they arrived in the Americas?
• Did Polynesians contact South Americans?

So I am currently writing a rhetorical analysis paper on President Bush's Sept. 20th state of the union address, and I am trying to provide as much context as possible. My question is: How much did the U.S. see terrorism as a threat pre-9/11? Was it on the radar of an average American? Did Americans know who Osama Bin Laden was before this, or was he first introduced in the wake of the attacks? Thank you for your help!

A lot of once-classic older work just hasn't stood the test of time; but a few things have. Durant and Toynbee might be out, but I've heard Carlyle's work on the French Revolution still holds up.

What are some other works that stand up?

The first Crusade was launched by Pope Urban II (I believe) after a call to arms the the Byzantine emperor Eloxios.

While the Roman Catholic church appears to have a popcultural monopoly on the Crusades, we know that Orthodox Christians, especially in the First Crusade, often fought alongside them.

We also know what the typical Catholic knight would have worn on his armor, depending on his house, order, and nation of origin.

But how did this differentiate, if at all, from the Orthodox crusaders? Were there many differences in how armor was marked or styles? This can also be extended to types of weapons.

Could a Catholic and an Orthodox crusader know who was who without asking one another?

I look forward to your responses. Thank you!

If someone can direct me to a site that does historical monetary conversions, that would be great. But specifically I'm looking for this one value. It comes up a few times in a book I'm reading and was just curious how much that is in today's dollars. I don't know if it's a lot of a little and the context isn't helping. Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask.

Edit: the story takes place in British controlled Egypt, I don't know if piastre was specific to Egypt or if there are other versions (like US dollar and Canadian dollar)

Hello! I am a music major and on the side of my usual work I love studying obscure composers. I've so far delved far into Ivan Wyschnegradsky, and was hoping to get in-depth on a composer from the same time period, Nikolai Obukhov (or: Obouchov, Obuhow, Obuhov*, Obuhkov). I see Obuhov used a lot in American spellings.

I was able to find one book discussing him briefly in a book at my school's library, and it says this passage:

There are also stories, possibly apocryphal, that Obukhov, in the throes of fanatical and ecstatic composition, would write the bar numbers in red, using his own blood. Obukhov worked on [The Book of Life, Le livre de vie] all his life, and the main work has a number of subsidiary pieces stemming from it, sometimes in multiple versions. The total work, covering some two thousand (!) pages, has apparently never been presented, although fragments have been played by conductors such as Koussevitzky, and French Radio has broadcast come excerpts. A film made by Germaine Dulas on the subject had some distribution in France and Italy in 1935.

I am hungry for the media described here... is there any way of knowing if French Radio had those broadcasts saved and archived, and if I would be able to request copies? Also, how would I go about trying to locate the Dulas film? If anyone here could help me, or direct me towards help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Obviously the living standard of most humans has reached a point where we are able to spend vast amounts of time on recreational activities. I am wondering however if people in the medieval era ever had the money or time to peruse interests other than their profession and taking care of necccesities such as feeding oneself.

I am aware that the wealthy have probably always had the time to pursue their own hobbies. In this case I am wondering about common folk and if they were able to have personal interests or if they were always confined to work/personal obligations.

I have always wondered whether or not anyone actually used them effectively, I know they are used for chopping wood primarily but where they ever fielded on battle effectively enough to have been remarked? Would love some sources too please.

Thanks for your answers!

Here's a sentence from the opening of James VI and I's "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" (1604):

For certainely as such customes, that have their first institution either from a godly, necessary, or honorable ground, and are first brought in, by the meanes of some worthy, vertuous, and great Personage, are ever, and most justly, holden in great and reverent estimation and account, by all wise, vertuous, and temperate spirits: So should it by the contrary, justly bring a great disgrace into that sort of customes, which having their originall from base corruption and barbarity, doe in like sort, make their first entry into a Countrey, by an inconsiderate and childish affectation of Noveltie, as is the true case of the first invention of Tobacco taking, and of the first entry thereof among us.

Why were books written this way? Were people more adept at paying attention back then, or were authors worse at writing?

I tried googling this question and I have not found the answer. I am watching A Knight's Tale, and while I know it is entirely fictional, I was wondering if the stirrup was used when jousting was first introduced as a sport, anywhere across Europe. I do not know enough about this era to know when stirrups were introduced, but I do know they were invented in China and spread westward, if I am correct. So I do not know if they coincide.