We learned nothing else about this guy other than the fact that the Americas are named after him. From my little research he was the first to posit that the new world was a different landmass and not the backside of Asia. Is that really deserving of naming the continents after him? Or I'm missing something

To my understanding, when the King James Bible was translated, it was translated into how English was spoken at the time. However, the Book of Mormon, having been allegedly translated in the early 1800s, was not translated into how English was spoken in the 1820s but rather into a form of English very similar to that of the King James Bible. Is there any cited reason - whether spiritual or not - for this apparent stylistic choice?

The evidence provided in this video was merely that Obama was the only president born after Brown v board of education. But were all schools segregated before then? And wouldn't there have been some presidents who are still in school when Brown occurred, even if they had already been in school for a little while? The video didn't specify this, but I have the sense they're referring to primary and secondary school, not college or university.

Hello! Is there any books or researches about competition for economy domination between Italian city-states? Well-known that Venice and Genua were two developed merchant republics, wich had a contest for influence in the mediterranean sea. I'd like to know about it more, in details. Рreferably including other states like Piza, Milano etc.

Hello, a long time ago I became interested in the topic of the Irish famine and I saw many people who said that it was the fault of implementing laissez faire policies, once the famine began, the severity and the duration of the famine. But I understand that there were policies in place that had nothing to do with laissez faire like corn laws. What books, works or papers would you recommend me to soak up the subject and not fall into dogmatism or blame everything on the free market?

Thank you very much.

Similarly, what freedoms did other nobles have whilst waiting for ransoms to be paid after being captured in war?

Did Nazis ever land a land army in the UK? like some soldiers or tanks or something?

If not, why not? what was stopping them?, it does not look far on the map.

Was mounting a landing invasion a weak point of the nazi army because every attack I see they did is land to land/border to border?

Did the nazis ever actually do a beach landing? a succesful beach landing?

It feels like even modest artillery should shred such tight formations leading to something more akin to trench warfare as armies seek covee

Apologies if this doesn’t fit the mold of this subreddit but I cannot seem to find a single book about Leopold I and didn’t know where else to turn.

Do any books on him exist?

In 2001, a historian found a Chinese map of the Americas that supposedly dates back to the early XV century during some expeditions led by Zheng He; though this is still a seemingly debatable source.

More accurately, Vikings had a brief and ephemeral presence in the Atlantic Canada and Southern Greenland back in the Middle Ages.

Just like Tenochtitlan would work as a commercial intersection among north and central american peoples, Lima and its nearby seaports had a great maritime knowledge over the Andean Pacific coast.

Did any external-american people happen to establish any source of commercial network with local-native societies prior to Columbus?

Plus, I’m aware there’s a huge amount of questionable-to-fake historiographical approaches over the presence of non-american peoples in the Americas, I’m so not willing to cross that line at all.

Did the rulers of the Piast dynasty counted inhabitants on their territory? Or were there at least smaller censes of population in towns or villages? If so, do we have acces to some of these documents?

I have found only a rough estimates of population size in this region, that seem to be based on acheological evidence, but I was not able to find a mention about any population census.

The internet is a wonderful yet hateful... thing. Why was there a need for it in the first place and why did it grow in the middle to late 90's? Also subreddit question. Whenever I see a fact that I would like to see an answer too, whether there are 3 comments or 30, I never see anything other than a bot and a graveyard of comments. Are there actually any historians out there? I don't care about the rules, I would like an actual answer.

I realise Netherland's official name in a bunch of languages is literally Holland/Hollandia/Hollanda and the word "Netherland" doesn't even exist, e.g. Japanese. I wonder if this is because Netherlanders actually refered their country as Holland in the past or for some other reasons? The Kingdom of Holland was established in 1806 after the take over by Napoleon, but that doesn't explain because by this point pretty much every nation had already learnt about Netherland for quite some time. I'm highly suspicious of the theory of people from all around the world collectively mistaking the two provinces in the kingdom as the whole kingdom. Thank you so much for your time.

The Japanese have been pretty savage during their wars abroad, one can think of countless atrocities committed during the 20th century by the Imperial Japanese army in China and Southeast Asia. Japanese pirates were famous during the Ming Dynasty for plundering the coast and terrorizing citizens and during the invasion of Korea in 1592, they brutalized the Joseon people, even sending boxes of noses of civilians which are now buried in mounds in several places in Japan.

-So my question is, why do the civil conflicts of the Senkogu period seem relatively free of any mention of war crimes or brutality against civilians? For an and off civil war that went on for a century, I've never heard any mention of the war destroying the land or economy. Typically civil wars (well, wars in general) result in massive loss of life and destruction of the economy due to famine and plague after soldiers destroy cities and towns. American Civil War, Taiping Rebellion, Thirty Year War etc. come to mind. However, I've never once read about civilians being raped/massacred en masse when reading about the conflicts of that period. I've noticed that many sieges were of castles and not actual cities and I wonder if thats a reason why civilians didn't end up getting targeted during the typical sackings of cities after a siege. Were there any noteworthy war atrocities committed during the civil wars that were directed at civilians? Was the Japanese economy negatively affected by the wars?

I am aware that there were some concerns with religion. But was there any kind of discrimination, segregation or assimilation in relation to their language and culture?

Why not April 1st, or July 9th, or even October 31st?

When was it decided that January 1st was the beginning of a new year?

My understanding is that and empire is an authoritarian domination of several ethnic groups but it seems like the definition is not consistently applied. Were the Chinese dynasties really empires? Were the Sumerians or Egyptians? In the more modern context I think I understand it better especially when it references the British, French and Germans because it feels more exploitative but I am always left scratching by head wondering what splits the difference.

Isn’t it more useful to be able to cut your enemy from either side of the sword? What were the Japanese’ rationale for having a unilateral sharpened side only?

Just some thoughts to ponder on after playing the Witcher 3 (medieval Poland) & Ghost of Tsushima (feudal Japan) back to back. Both games rely on sword-based combat, got my brain wound up on how Eastern vs. Western sword combat differed.

I come from an Islamic background so I am not particularly new to the issues surrounding the composition of the Quran, the reliability of hadith, etc. However, I definitely am not a scholar.

Given that hadith is generally considered to be reliable (well, hadith which is sahih at least) and a unique example of orally documented history, how do secular historians explain the numerous reports of miracles which have many unbroken chains of narrators and are difficult to explain away as lies?

What I have in mind is NOT something like the splitting of the moon; rather, I am thinking of the stories about Muhammad 'blessing' food and using a very small amount of food to feed hundreds of his followers. Such stories, as far as I know, were told by many followers on many different occasions. As a result, shouldn't the reports be considered reliable in general even if some of the stories are actually lies?

I thought of posting this to r/askphilosophy first, as it has more to do with the philosophy of miracles and evidence, but I am interested in hearing the opinions of historians first. Thank you in advance!