Hi,

I noticed, that the Ask Historians, recommended book-list in the FAQs does not have a recommended book for the James Polk. Please note, I have great regard for this community, because it ensures that books which optimize for truth/accuracy are recommended, and not books optimized for entertainment. For instance, I used to think, that David McCollough's biography on John Adams would be a good book to read. It is only on visiting this subreddit did I realise that David's book are less respected from a historical standpoint. Given this condition, which book would historians recommend on James Polk? Also, which books, in order of reference, would be recommended on Churchill?

I have been much more careful in the selection of books, due to this sub-reddit, and I am grateful for that.

The birthyear of the character of Dr. Watson in the "Sherlock Holmes" stories is 1852; at some point in the 70s, he receives his medical degree and then joins the British Army as a surgeon. After an eventful military service, he suffers a bullet wound (the famous "Wandering Wound") at the Battle of Maiwand (1880, making him 28 at the time) and on top of that catches typhoid fever. He is discharged from military service with an invalid's pension and returns to Britain on the HMS Orontes either in '80 or '81. In 1881 (presumably at the age of 29), he moves in with Holmes in 221B Baker Street. The two then have numerous of the adventures described in the stories. In The Sign of Four, set in 1888, Watson, then at the age of 36, becomes engaged (for the first time as far as we can tell, though there is some controversy here regarding a wife being mentioned in The Five Orange Tips), and marries in 1889. We don't have any definite date of birth for the wife, Mary Morstan, later Watson, but we know she was 17 after 1878, putting her Y.O.B. at 1862 at the earliest, so she is at least a decade younger than Watson.

Now my question is: how representative would this sort of biography be of British men in the Victorian era, or more precisely of urban males with tertiary education? I think the popular belief about this time would be that women were to be married by their late teens or early twenties, and an unmarried man after the age of, say, 25-30 would be an oddity as well. We'd think this sort of extended adolescence, cohabiting in your 30s à la Friends or Big Bang Theory, is a motif of 90s and onward sitcoms. We wouldn't expect it in Victorian Britain.

Would this be a common biography? Or is it an unusual case that's simply needed to make the setting work?

edit: Adding additional information, fixing the typos.

Title and Title

From my personal understanding Russia in 1991 went from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the "Russian Federation" however my research does not really make it clear who came up with the name or if the concept existed as a idea years prior among the hearts and minds of White émigré.

And my research found nothing on Russian anti communists talking about forging a Russian Federation, Not in any poem, literature, or statements from N.T.S or any Russian organizations that sought to bring down the communist system.

So i guess my question is why is Russia called the Russian Federation and not the Russian Republic?

A great answer to a question about flouridation-focused conspiracy theories noted that this is an example of a conspiracy theory that seems fairly impervious to reason, and just doesn't die out. This got me to thinking: aren't all conspiracy theories modern Americans would be aware of like that? People confront Buzz Aldrin claiming the moon landing was faked. JFK assassination conspiracies haven't died out. Heck... people still claim that the Earth is flat, and, well, what conspiracy could be older or dumber than that? And yet there it is...

So the question: are there examples of once popular conspiracy theories that have actually "died out" and been lost to the dustbin of history? (At least until one of you brilliant folk pull it back out again, if only briefly--don't forget to put it back, please!)

In many strategy games like Civilization, Europa Universalis, etc. technology is linear and progressive: once the tech for e.g. chariots is invented, it stays available.

I'm often wondering if this approach to technology in games is fundamentally right or wrong. Certainly, often it does seem to fit historic reality well, e.g., writing was invented and pretty much stayed.

Other times it doesn't seem to fit at all, e.g., aqueducts in ancient Rome.

I guess my question comes down to the permanence of ideas. Is it a valid abstraction to assume that once an idea has been established , it stays? E.g., get some "researcher points" and invent "chariots".

Or is it much more historically accurate to abstract to a maintenance model, e.g., we need to produce at least 5 "research points" to keep "chariots" after inventing it or else we'll lose it after X rounds/years?

As the Ottomans began to contract severely in the 19th century, Muslims who had been living in the contracted regions for centuries were either killed off, forced to leave for Ottoman territory or forced to convert at the point of the bayonet. Alongside the Circassian Genocide this is what historians deem to be one of the first instances of refugee crisis and modern industrial genocides. Yet why is it so less known in public and popular history?

Last month, I watched Hamilton the musical. While I already knew that Alexander Hamilton died from a gunshot wound sustained in a duel, I learnt that his eldest son also died as the result of a duel, at the age of only 19.

Other 19th century figures like Évariste Galois and Alexander Pushkin have also died as the result of duels. In popular history, people are said to have accepted the challenge of duels back then to "protect their honour". Was the reasoning for duels really that simple? Or were there more serious consequences of chickening out which compelled people to actually follow through with a duel?

I understand why NATO and the USSR were opposed to each other in the context of the ideological battle of the cold war, but why did they keep being in opposition after the collapse of the USSR? In particular, why is there a focus on preventing Russian expansion compared to that of other countries? Did Russia keep an expanding imperialist tradition?

I apologise if these questions seem very silly, but international politics aren't my thing by a long shot, so I'm trying to understand it from a historical point of view.

Hello everyone,

How did Hitler get enough support to pass the Enabling Act? If I am correct, it was an act that allowed the Nazi part to pass any legislation without the need for the Reichstag (other parties) approving it.

Did the other parties not realize they would lose power? And didn't this mean the Nazi's were legally allowed to do anything - even force the other parties to disband?

​

Thank you!

Edit: Christians still being salty lol

Currently watching and this piqued my interest for some reason.

There are 7 days in a week, which I read was first devised by the Babylonians and carried forward to Europe. Some Roman calendars had 8 days, but at some point 7 prevailed and became the standard.

However, unlike a monthly calendar based on the moon or sun, it’s completely arbitrary that today is Tuesday rather than Friday. So at some point in history, someone(s) had to decide that today would a particular day rather than another day, and it was carried forward from there.

When was this decided and by whom? How far back can we confidently say that any multiple of 7 “days ago” was also a Tuesday?

Zdzisław Najder on Joseph Conrad's short story "Youth" claims that coal was the second most dangerous cargo, behind coal, what made this so?

I just found out about how big of a white supremacist Henry Ford was, and I’m shocked. In school, I remember learning a ton about his car contributions and the assembly line, and when everyone talked about him it was as if he was some American hero.

To the contrary, he was the inspiration of Nazi Germany and so many other groups now causing trouble.

I’m curious why we haven’t learned about this?

I was at the Van Gogh Immersive exhibit recently and one of the exhibits said he died "just as his work was starting to get recognition". Previously I thought he had died in utter obscurity but this makes it sound like there was reason to think things were improving. Obviously a "what if" question can't really be answered, but maybe let's just focus on: is that exhibit accurate? Was he experiencing some kind of rise in interest just before his death?

For example, would it have been known that the Sarmatians spoke an Iranian language?

I have a few questions on it just so I can understand it more, because I don't really understand it.

1. How long would storming a Trench take?

2. If an offensive took and held 1 Trench deep on the other sides lines, how would that affect the rest of the front and trenches near it?

3. Was there just 1 large Trench line across the whole western front?

4. How did they divide the sectors? Like when one Trench raided another, where did they decide the attack to cut off so its neighbours don't attack, was there sectors?

5. I read a book where it said the pashendaele battle took months. How did that work? Was there troops going over the top 24/7? When did they sleep? Also was Pashendaele Trench warfare like the Somme or was it more hectic like the movies.

Sorry about the amount of questions, if you have any other facts about trenches feel free to share I want to learn as much as I can!

Before Christianity became a big concept, most countries seemed to have multiple gods. However after the Romans adopted Christianity as their religion, and imposed it in many more countries, a lot of monotheistic religions have developed. And now the biggest religions are monotheistic. What is the reason for this change in ideology?

Hello all you fine folk!

I'm interested in reading about the Crusades but I have quite a lot of material but I noticed I don't have any books regarding the Middle East's situation during the time. Therefore, I want to consult you! Do you have any recommendations on the Middle east's situation during this time period?

Also, how relevant is the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in regards to the Crusade? I hear a lot of people (usually Christians or critics of Islam) throw around that conquest as the reason why the Crusaders (300 years later) decided to mobilize against the muslims. As you can hear, I am skeptic towards to this, but yet unsure, so any help here would be of gratitude!

Thanks for any and all recommendations, have pleasant morning/day/evening/night!

This question can be broken down to two parts:

1. When writing a proposal for a PhD, where do hypotheses as to what could be something new come from? I know this is a philosophical question, but how does one know ahead of serious reading and researching which research question(s) or framework could lead to novel findings or novel perspectives? (Novelty being an essential element of a PhD)

2. Having started a PhD in a particular region/period/focus, how does one go about finding something new (or finding out that there is not something new)? The best advice I have found so far (which was very counterintuitive to me) was to read the literature on the subject in a reverse chronological order to assess the state of what is known and identify what could be missing. Assuming that is done, how does one know that the gap could be filled with a few years' worth of research?

I realise that I am asking in other words: how does one systematically deal with uncertainty and mitigate the possibility of not finding anything new or having anything new to say, but I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Of course, the honest option to quit the PhD once having concluded that nothing new can be said about said region/period/focus is there as well.

I run a small archive on a little known Pacific atoll (Palmyra), and there are mentions of Japanese bird poachers regularly visiting until WW2. I’ve always been curious how (or if) I could find sources for what the Japanese may have called it or any historical references to its history within Japan. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

It seems to me that traditional ecological knowledge as a category is tied to long periods of isolation from networks of trade, but I might be mistaken. Why do ecological practices (such as nutrient recycling through manuring and plowing in crop residues) in medieval European communities not count as traditional ecological knowledge?