And how did we find out about this influence or the lack thereof.

Just like the question says. I am rereading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon but I want to come at it more critically and recognize it for what it is while still enjoying it. Basically from all you flairs perspective how do you read a work or primary source that has been known to contain bias or out of date information and still get something out of it? I'm trying to apply this to any period so I can come at my reading without blind faith yet still enjoy it.

I read in Max Hastings' "Inferno: The World at War, 1939 - 1945" (phenomenal book BTW) that Poland was the only nation in which there was no collaboration with the Nazis. I wonder if this is a result of the Third Reich not willing to extend collaboration with what they considered subhuman Jew-harborers or perhaps the Polish culture holds some unspoken value that begets extreme resistance even in the face of annihilation. Someone please set me straight on this one. Thanks!

I read that wine was known to the Japanese but was by and large imported during the edo period. Did the Christians use this imported wine and risk the increased chance of being found out or did they substitute it with something else?

What I mean is art that tries to depict its subject in as realistic proportions as possible. Were there any other societies that produced realistic depictions? All the art that I have looked from Classical China or medieval europe looks like a miniature with a very "flattened" look. I was wondering why didnt other civilization try to reproduce the natural depth and perspective in their art.

So the story goes that somewhere around the middle east, India or North Africa, there is an inaccessible mountain range or valley or something filled with diamonds. Locals throw in skinned animal carcasses, fresh and bloody for the diamonds to stick to. These mountains also have eagles which take those bodies to their nests, where the locals scare off the eagles and go off with the diamonds.

In the Sindbad story, these eagles are gigantic and there are also gigantic snakes in the valley. In Marco Polo, everything's a bit more mundane.

I'm really curious about this and I'd love to learn more! Is it historical? Are there other versions of the story? Do we know of a first one?

I had some questions I was hoping you all could help me clear up in regards to my future career as an academic historian.

1. Is it possible (and, if so, common) to have two separate focus areas? Could one focus on both Europe and the Middle East, for instance?

2. How long of a time period do historians usually focus on?

3. More specifically: the two focus areas I'm passionate about focusing on are Jewish history and the history of radical leftism. I'd like to study European Jewry, Yiddish culture in Europe and America, Zionism, Israel-Palestine, and so on; but I'd also like to study the history of Marxism, of the Soviet Union, of the People's Republic of China, and so forth. Both take place over roughly the same time period (~1848 to present). Would doing both work? If not, what are my options?

Thanks everybody!

Dan Carlin (and I think, the askhistorians podcast on hoplite batteles) mentions that hoplite warfare really only began around 490bc. Before then, they were basically gangs of rich people followed by hangers on.

But then how did the etruscans learn hoplite warfare? I read on wiki they might have known it as early as the 6th century bc.

I've just recently come across the claim of pre-Columbian indigenous American blacks. It seems to claim that there were tribes of "black indians" in California and other places when Europeans arrived.

How credible are these claims and what is the source material they're working from?

I think that most of us have an image of pirates with ships that fire cannon balls, but what about before the cannon was invented? Did they have something to fire at other ships to damage them or even destroy them?

Does anyone have any more evidence or reading material around this or how exactly the snakes were used? The book just devotes that single sentence to it but I want more!

I understand they were radical protestants but there also remains the factor of land enclosure and their focus on common land.

I understand that this could still be an area of debate within history. If there is a lack in any real consensus I would greatly appreciate any works that could illuminate all sides of the debate.

I know there are people studying this topic at the university of Hong kong, but what about the rest of the world?

was there any advantage to volunteering? Why would anybody volunteer?

I'm currently visiting South Korea and have some family (grandfather, great-uncles and aunts, etc.) that fled from the North to the South after the war started. I visited a cemetery specific to North Koreans and was surprised by the huge number of people in the 1950s who fled from North Korea to South Korea. It's surprising to me because my understanding is the South had a very low standard of living compared to the North at the time, and both of them were headed for military dictatorships, so it wouldn't have been clear at the time which side would end up being the better side to live on. I have a couple questions around this:

• Did more people (soldiers and civilians) flee from the North to the South, from the South to the North, or roughly an equal number of each, at the beginning of the war?
• Was there a general consensus among civilians about which side would end up giving them a better life?
• Or which side would give them better safety?
• When someone fled from one side to the other, did they have a good idea that they would likely never be able to return?

I'm interested in reading "A Peoples History of the United States". The first chapter was entertaining and I'd like to see the history of the US from the workers point of view but its heavily criticized and I'm wondering what is another US history book you would read along side it.

I'm thinking of reading both books at the same time during the same time period and seeing the differences between the two but I can't find a book that suits this. I would like it to be an entertaining read.