Im currently a student in my junior year of high school, trying to figure out what career path I should take. Very much split on either law, or a career as a Historian/History Academic/History Professor. I’m a very good writer, very interested and knowledgeable about a lot of history (especially American and European), and am very much willing to always learn more about history and do my own research (something a Historian has the responsibility of doing). I’ve also taken as many advanced History and Social Studies related courses as I have been able to and i have done well in them. The only qualms I have with becoming a Historian as a career is the pay, and how difficult the path to becoming a Historian actually is. If anyone could tell me the top amount a Historian at the top of his field can make as well as the process of becoming a tenured professor/History academic is, it would be greatly appreciated.

In fantasy settings leather armor seems to be just about everywhere. Often of some sort of "studded leather" variety. Generally, fantasy settings are meant to emulate the high or late middle ages, at least to my understanding, but I've never seen any real examples of leather armor from that era. In fact, I don't believe I have ever seen any real examples of leather armor.

After considering it for a while, I'm fairly sure leather wouldn't have actually been effective as armor. It'd be more protective than just wearing cloth, yes, but I don't think to such an extent it could actually be considered armor, at least in comparison to metal. So I've found myself believing that leather armor is nothing but an invention of authors' imaginations. Don't want to make assumptions though, it's always best to consult with folks more knowledgeable, so I wish to ask:

Was leather armor actually something that existed in history? If so, would it have actually existed in the era that fantasy so often emulates?

Odd question, but are there any well proofed books on medieval Hungarian history? I’d prefer within the realm of the mid to late 13th century to early 14th, but anything medieval will suffice.

The books can be on anything, but I’m particularly curious about culture, warfare and religion.

Thank you so much!

Listening to the history of Rome, and really struck by the fact that patrilineal succession was so rare. Julius Caesar, one of the most famous men in history, had no male heir. Compare this with someone like Genghis Khan.

1. Is it likely that Caesar had many illegitimate children, and nobody can trace them?

2. Is it likely that Caesar raped women in areas he conquered?

3. Was contraceptive use common? Did Roman women choose to have fewer children? Or was there some exogenous factor, like poor health / insufficient calories to support pregnancy?

I asked specifically about Caesar, but am guessing that what was true for him was true for most Roman emperors. Maybe that’s wrong. It’s just amazing to me that Caesar as an idea is prevalent in a huge swath of the world two thousand years later, but Caesar as a group of genes petered out quickly.

I see sentences like "[Wampanoag] oral tradition points towards a relative stability in governance and culture before contact and afterwards" on this sub, mentions of Iroquois Keepers whose knowledge is vital for understanding their history but never sourced, and articles proclaiming memories of natural events X thousand years ago. This seems like an incredibly important and understudied source for Precolumbian history.

I was reading up on "Manifest Destiny" and it suddenly struck me how similar the ideas between it and "Lebensraum" seem at first glance. I've heard and read before that the Nazis were inspired in their ideology and cruelty by American ideas/trends/wrongdoings, like eugenics and the "Trail of Tears". Would this also extend to the concept of "Manifest Destiny"? From a Laymen's perspective, both ideas suppose the perpetrators to be racially (and religiously, for Americans) superior to the people living on the lands they aim to conquer, and thus entitled to that land. Or was "Lebensraum" more inspired by the European migrations of centuries past? Lastly, if there hadn't been a "Manifest Destiny", what are the chances of an idea like "Lebensraum" being created on its own?

What were the diets of medieval peasants actually like (In Europe), and to what extent did they vary for the average poor person depending on location? Would a peasant in a city be eating similar stuff to a peasant working on a farm? What about inland vs by the coast or on a major river? How prevalent were scurvy or other diet-related diseases?

I read somewhere that England was also facing crop failure at this time, so the British Empire compensated by moving supplies from India to England, but any supporting evidence for this would be great.

So this includes two questions, 1) Did the Europeans simply "draw up" borders in Africa without any concern for pre-existing states or tribes during the Scramble, and 2) When these colonies eventually became independent they inherited these borders, how much has that impacted Africa's potential to grow?

How much of a ethnic/cultural identity did the African native groups have? Have those African countries that have had more of a homogenous identity fared better than those that were a disparate group of rival tribes?

Bessarabia was delineated in the Soviet sphere of interest in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, yet naturally Romania was not part of this treaty.

As I understand it the Romanian government (and the Soviet Union) were ready to go to war over the issue except that the German and Italian governments persuaded the Romanian government to accede to demands. This is something I dont quite understand as:

1. While Bessarabia was part of the Soviet area of interest, Bucovina was not, meaning Stalin was overreaching/not abiding by the limits of the treaty
2. The Winter War showed the Soviet army to be significantly weaker than anticipated, and might have created the impression that Romania could have held out in the case of war, particularly as the Romanian armed forces were significantly more powerful than the Finnish ones
3. Romania tying down Soviet forces could theoretically thin out Soviet lines along the German border, improving the odds of operation Barbarossa, for which logistical operations commenced only half a year later

Why then did both the Axis powers and the Romanian government accept Soviet terms?

That's pretty much it. I'm studying WWII on History class, and I keep reading stuff like "the Russians occupied Berlin" or "Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were Russian Republics". Shouldn't they be called Soviets? Russia was just one of the republics that constituted the Soviet Union...

The same goes to the UK. I keep reading stuff like "France and England landed on Normandy on D-Day". It wasn't just England, it was the whole UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They also refer as "English" to citizens or soldiers from the UK... and it's really uncomfortable.

What really sticks out is that a lot of very good sources use this terminology: Oxford and Cambridge academic books, IB books, BBC, CNN, National Geographic... etc.

Is it like a standard among historians to accept those kinds of generalizations? What's going on?

In The Untouchables (1987) a reporter takes a picture of Elliot Ness as he's smashing a box presumably full of illegal liquor, then about thirty seconds later, takes another photograph of Ness looking like an idiot while holding a novelty umbrella that was actually in the shipment instead of booze.

My question: would it be possible for the reporter to take two photos in such quick succession using a 1930s era flashbulb camera?

Considering examples of ancient technology such as the Antikythera mechanism, many of these creations would presumably have required advanced knowledge of mathematics, physics, engineering, etc. of a degree where it seems unlikely a single individual such as Archimedes could develop them on their own in a single lifetime. Even assuming a situation where apprenticeship was far more common, given a lack of print media allowing the remote spreading/sharing of ideas its seems likely that it would take a relatively large number of local students to support the incremental advance of knowledge in fields that require physical experimentation. Were precursors to universities simply more common in the ancient world than I am aware of?

Edit for clarity: I'm mostly interested in what a serf's knowledge would be of geography outside of his village, would travellers come and tell us of such things?

I have seen this quote many times, and Charles V is one of my favorite European monarchs. He domineered Europe for the better part of the 16th century, but had many enemies (primary ones being the Ottomans, Francis I of France, and Protestant German Princes). What mainly confuses me about this quote is whether or not these lines are insulting or complimenting (or both?), especially the German one. My Initial interpretation is…

Spanish-defenders of the faith by fighting the ottomans and converting the new world

Italian-epitome of renaissance era refinement and culture

French-the language of nobility, law, and business

German- used for war, since a lot of the time period’s conflicts were in the German speaking world (or maybe an insult towards Germans by comparing them to a horse?). Also if taken literally, a lot of the best war horses in Europe were bred in Germany..

Finally, what context was this said? Doesn’t seem like something said in a state speech, but in conversation? Or maybe even a joke at a party?

What are your thoughts?!

I'm very interested in the history of Formula One and hope to one day publish a book that would be targeted towards the general public to make them more interested in the sport. At the library in my university, I noticed that many books include a bibliography and references / footnotes while some do not. Is a bibliography essential when writing a book because of reliability and plagarism issues?

Hey!

Middle Eastern history has a lot of easily definable eras which have had monographies written and dedicated to them - The Caliphate Era, or the Ummayad and Abbasid Eras; The Ottoman Empire or the Safavid Empire for Iran, with both actually becoming big at a similar time; the early modern era, 20th century... You get it.

There remains a pretty substantial chunk of the region's history between the slow death of the Abbasids and the emergence of the Ottomans. It is by no means an uneventful period - it is the time of the Crusades, Seljuqs, Mongols, Timur, the Persian Renaissance, Buyids, Fatimids...

I have some rough idea of this period, but my knowledge is somewhat chaotic and I would appreaciate reading a good book on the subject to freshen up what I know and somewhat organize it in my head, but struggle with finding any which would cover this period specifically! Do you guys have any good recommendations? I am interested both in general regional overviews and specifically Iranian history as well.

Thanks a lot!

I'm curious to what degree LoTR sparked interest in the idea of magic jewelry that is so common in fantasy media nowadays - books, tabletop games, and video games commonly have jewelry that grants new abilities or improves performance.

I know the impact of LoTR on fantasy in general is pretty well documented, but more interested if magic jewelry existed in other media in the early-mid 1900s

Or maybe another way to phrase the question, "If Tolkien was never born, would the idea of a magic ring or necklace be popular today?"