Outline of the Troubles seem like something from 19th or early 20th century, filled with ethnic nationalism, poverty and despair. What kind of oppression did the Irish face in late 20th century so that they felt the urge to take up arms? It feels weird to realize that there was actually an ethnic conflict in Western Europe until so recently.

[deleted]

One can't help to be a bit charmed over "I found Rome a city of bricks, and left it a city of marble"

I know and have at hand plenty of biographies of Octavian/Augustus. But they are all that: biographies. That, at least those at the library, deal with his life but not in an overarching way evaluates his reign, contextualises the problems faced, and comments on the lasting impacts he had. Negative and positive.

Anyone recommend any good works?

I just got the fall of Rome by gibbon, will it be enough? Or are good compliments out there?

I tried searching this to see if it was asked but i didnt see it, sorry if it was! Im really curious after reading about a couple of battles, what was the logic in throwing men at hills, valleys and cities only to move on after the battle was over, allowing the North to reclaim it? Why not establish bases and policing operations?

Cognizant of the fact that "Golden Age" is a bit of a loaded term, I'm specifically referring to the height of the Islamic empire at its heart (or hearts, considering Baghdad/Damascus/Cordoba), with particular attention to what daily life was like in it. What are some good, accessible books or documentaries that might cover this period?

Welcome to Monday Methods!

We have in the past discussed the relationship between history and various forms of media. Concerning literature, historians have since Haydn White a sense of how closely related writing about history and writing fiction can be, since we also work with emplotting sequences of happenings, connect them in certain ways, and our texts too, have traditionally a start, middle and end with a certain arc of suspense that culminates in our findings.

But the similarities between academic writing and fictional writing aside, historians also work utilizing fiction as a source: Scholars of South-Eastern Europe have long since discovered the importance of travelogues and novels about the region for reconstructing how the Balkans and all associated stereotypes with that term came into being and were spread. Klaus Theweleit famously used fictional writings by and about members of the Freikorps from after WWI to reconstruct their image of self and their image of masculinity and the important role it played for Fascism. Several German scholars have used Karl May and his novels about the Wild West and the Middle East to reconstruct images of the self and the other in early 20th century German society. Edward Said and the historians who embraced his theory of Orientalism have famously used literature to unravel and trace the Western imagination of the Orient and the image of the other throughout recent centuries.

So, literature can be a important source since the stories a society tells about itself, who their heroes are and what makes them heroic, and what worlds are constructed tell us a lot about a society; from their vision of themselves, to what they embrace, to ideas of utopia and dystopia.

But for all of you who worked with this specific type of sources, what are the pitfalls of using literature as a source? What is important in terms of source critique? What do we have to look out for? And what are the ways literature is best utilized as a historical source? Discuss and share your experiences below.

[deleted]

Between hotels, restaurants, and gas stations that simply wouldn't serve black people and a confusing patchwork of "sundown towns" and differing Jim Crow laws, it seems like long-distance travel (by car, train, or bus) would have been extremely difficult and potentially dangerous.

How did African American travelers know where to go and what to expect?

[deleted]

As I understand, the Black Plague ended feudalism in Western Europe and started serfdom in Eastern Europe, so the classic "serf/peasant in a manor" type feudalism only existed in Western Europe during the Medieval Ages.

However, Christian Spain was a frontier society of sorts and focused on the resettlement of Christians/expulsion of Muslims which doesn't fit nicely with the idea of serfdom. Unlike neighboring countries, it didn't claim descent from the Carolingian Empire or it's administrative reforms.

Speculatively, feudalism might have been stronger in Catalonia, which was Frankish territory for a time, but this the nature of my question and part of what I am asking.

PS/Edit: I have no idea how this got flaired as 20th century black history nor how to remove it, help is appreciated. Thank you!

I was a museum today and I saw a spearhead from 1100 BCE. How is it possible that 1. it has survived this long and 2. we know that it's actually from then and not misattributed?

In the historical rankings of the presidents, Wilson is almost unanimously considered one of the greatest presidents of all time. However, he's the complete polar opposite to the public. In fact, Wilson is most likely the most hated President often considered one of the top in history.

Not accepting his racist & xenophobic ideologies and cold personality would be foolish, I know, but truthfully from what I've heard from relatively reliable sources such as History books and videos of accounts from WW1 veterans prior to their deaths, I think Wilson was an absolutely phenomenal President besides that.

The economy prospered and poverty decreased exponentially prior to the breakout of the Depression, and being an Academic he greatly improved the standards of education in America. The growth of the economy and America's overall wealth also strengthened the Military, allowing for more funding for the development of advanced Weaponry. He openly decided against British plans to invade Russian territory and sought to reform all Nations through ideas of reconciliation and tranquility following the Great War with his Fourteen Points, an exception being Germany and the Ottomans since they were almost certainly responsible for the War.

Speaking of WW1, which is likely the most popular historical event that occurred during his presidency, Wilson repudiated American association in the War for the longest time, which likely saved thousands if not millions of American lives. When the time did come, American involvement the War practically guaranteed an Allied victory.

Perhaps what I've heard is wrong, exaggerated or western propaganda, but if not I can't wrap my head around the Wilson hate. From what I've heard it was since he was allegedly against the Constitution and the racism argument, but he did develop new tactics for protecting American laws and citizen rights and thought slavery was wrong. He wasn't perfect, but I think he at least attempted to be a fine president.

My apologies if what I've said sounds stupid to some of you. I'm just trying to comprehend peoples' distaste for him using what's been given to me about him. Was Woodrow Wilson really that bad? Or does he simply get to much hate for his political decisions and time in office?

Also, especially in the age or corsets, how did they deal with pregnancies, particularly in the clothing department

Also, where I live if I'm too lazy to cook or get off my ass my delivery options are limited to those types of places. Basically. Is this just a matter of those being the most popular options?

I'll admit that I don't remember every detail of the movie although I've seen it 3 or 4 times over the years, but I'm not trying to start a discussion about movie trivia.

Additionally, why did this group of people have to trek halfway across France? Couldn't they just like....radio the platoon leader and get Private Ryan sent home on the next flight back to the states?

Between the late 19 century to ww2, the British empire had 1/4 of the world population, 3 times more than the soviet union (from my math) and still It didnt just had a huge army like the soviets. Sure, it probably was hard to transport all the manpower but it should have been quite the force with such massive population...Am I missing something? Forward thanks.

Around the turn of the century, when race science was standard across the West, how did the Catholic church address peoples now believed to be less than human? Did they oppose this sort of white supremacy on theological grounds, or did the Vatican just play along?

How did Nazi Germany capture Jews, because they look like Germans for the most part?

I'm fascinated by sports ability to unite, humanize, and even stretch society in novel ways. The integration of major league baseball, and Jackie Robinson's story, is widely known, but I realized I know next to nothing about integration in other sports.

What is the story of the first black players in other leagues? How did the process unfold for the national football league, or basketball leagues, or the national hockey league, or even other sports like golf and tennis? Was the process easier because baseball went first, or did each league face specific issues? Did international sports, like cricket or rugby, face problems with integration?

Thanks in advance!

I was surprised when I first began to research Rome seriously that Caesar was often the title of the heir rather than the emperor at least officially. But in the Bible you certainly get the impression that the average person referred to the emperor as Caesar. The only time the word Augustus is used is when referring to Octavian.The title Caesar on the other hand is used repeatedly to refer to various emperors. In the Roman empire what title would the average person use when referring to the emperor? Did it differ from official technical titles and if so why?