Ok folks, here we go. I graduated in 2005 with a History BA. I joined the US Military, spent some time there, and ever since have been a coffee importer/consultant. I'm debating changing paths to something in history but, in all honesty, have no idea where to turn to start research and groundwork. I know what interests me, but wanted to ask what resources are available for a job search in the field, what advice you can impart based on your own career (and entry into it), and if an advanced degree is worth it in your opinion (it depends on the work I would do of course, but I recall someone telling me go PhD or go home). In coffee, for example, there are specialized publications, job boards specifically for coffee, education for career paths, etc and I assume the same exists in history but do not know where/what is reputable.

Would any of you fine folks mind giving me some general information and guidance on the aforementioned points so I can do my due diligence and begin to research a route to take? I understand my request is broad, but any guidance you could give would help me narrow down my research and make the transition successfully.

Doing family research I came across a US War Department record stating “Simmons certifies that $xxx is due John and David SurnameX, Scouts of Logan County Kentucky, being their pay for protecting the frontier of that county from July 29 to Sept. 27, 1794. For genealogical purpose I would like to know the minimum age for a scout. I would also like to understand the historical setting.

did these world war 2 commanders do anything special tactics or strategy-wise?

or were they simply the head boss when their forces were out producing their enemies?

I recently started at Ford and I'll be meeting with their corprate historian in a week for a lunch meeting . I was trying to think of some questions to ask him and was wondering if the people on this subreddit had any they wanted to ask.

Thanks in advance for any replies

Also feel free to delete this mods if it isn't the type of question that's supposed to be in this subreddit.

I've never written a college history research paper before. I thought about writing on the battle of waterloo, but I figure that's been done plenty of times. While looking around that era I learned about "the hundred days" prior to the battle so I think I'd like to write about that. I'm only allowed to use 2 online sources so I'm curious to see what hard sources there are out there that cover that period. I'll be going to the library later today to see what I can find but I figure you all might know of some specific articles I might be able to use. Also, what's the best practice when writing these types of papers? I usually just use an MLA format and cite to support my position is it similar with a research paper or should I be doing something different?

The built the Israeli and Iraqi reactors and maybe more which made me wonder why France was so inclined to do so in the first place.

In Normal Accidents the author claims

There is a good reason why our dominant design, the pressurized light water reactor, was adopted...in the 1950s the US government was very anxious to find peaceful uses for atomic energy, and, in particular, to develop atomic power production...The goverment had on hand a design for a reactor; it was being built for submarines. Such a reactor is very compact, very responsive, and can easily be refueled once a year when the submarine returns to port and does not need the power.

Is this an accurate statement?

[deleted]

Our lecturer yesterday (university) told us that Darwin went to Egypt and while staying there, he tried to back up his claims with some verses from the Quran.

I'm really suspicious about these claims, I've found nothing whatsoever on his stay in Egypt, thank you guys!

As you know alcohol is Haram in Islam. And they were living in deserts, what did they use to get liquid from?

I was just reading about Ancient Assyria, Babylon, and then Persia, all of which seemed to be massive empires spanning vast areas, while us Westerners (well, those of us in England anyway) still had another 1,000 years odd before we would start wearing clothes into battle.

Is there any kind of consensus on why these cultures seemed to develop into large empires well before (if I'm not mistaken) Ancient Greece/Rome?

As a side note, how was Chinese civilisation doing while Assyria was firing up? Was Assyria well 'ahead' of them as well?

How can one gain a better understanding of African history after reading Joseph Conrad's "heart of darkness"?

So, I understand that while being very deadly by any standard, smallpox still left many survivors (at least in populations where there was established exposure and immunity to it, i.e. not the Americas).

I've been trying to find out how disfiguring the disease was for those who survived it. Would survivors have had fully pock-marked faces? Was it uniformly disfiguring, or did some people get off easier? Did it matter the age at which you contracted smallpox -- e.g. the younger you are when you get a scar, the more successfully the scar will heal/disappear with time? And did these outcomes vary based on time period, location or treatment techniques?

I am listening to The Great Courses - Maya to Aztec: Ancient Mesoamerica Revealed by Edwin Barnhart. It's a nice overview of Mesoamerican history to listen to while jogging.

When Barnhart is discussing origins of the Aztec and related people to the north, he makes an offhand comment about the Natchez in Louisiana, saying their language is an isolate and only partially recorded and that their cultural practices include human sacrifice and resemble Mesoamerica rather than their neighbors, and that they have an origin myth of coming from far to the south.

Intrigued I have looked around for evidence of this possibility such as lingustic analysis, cultural comparison, or DNA studies and found almost nothing discussing it.

So historians out stock in his claim and if not, should I call the entire audio book into question?

Willing to pay for database access if it's reasonable.

The only reason I know about him is because of the movie The Imitation Game and when I heard of the Turing test(from the movie Ex Machina). But never in my K-12 years have I even heard of Alan Turing discussed in class.

He seems like he was an absolute necessity for our victory against Hitler. So why was he ignored?