Apologies if this has been discussed before. Does the idea of 'turning points' over emphasise certain moments, while making everything else seem stagnant simply because whatever is happening doesn't have relevance to historians now? To give two examples; Joan of Arc's victories are seen to be a 'turning point', but does that over-simplify the complexities of the Treaty of Troyes, of minority rule, etc. etc.? Are the developments in the years preceding and after her death often looked at less closely? A more important example (to me): does the idea and even search for a 'turning point' that enabled industrialisation etc. in Western Europe obscure the study of events that don't seem to have led to empires? Or the study of societies that didn't colonise half the world? Does the search for 'turning points' (and the assumptions inherent in the trajectory studied) create assumptions that it is difficult for historians to overcome? I'd be really interested in anybody's thoughts. I originally posted this unthinkingly on April 1st and was advised to repost, so here goes!

Heyo everyone,

I'm teaching Early Modern Europe to undergrads next fall, and I've come to lament the sorry state of my primary source library for this period. I need suggestions for substantial primary sources: 100-200 pages is best, and I'm happy to take novels, memoirs, political essays, whatever--but I'd like sources that get away from Britain, France, and Germany. I'd especially like sources from Iberia, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, or Eastern Europe. Thematically, I can work with almost anything, so whatever you've got that you found readable and interesting, let's hear it

Firstly I think this Sub is one of the best on Reddit and is one I check on often and the users have a great knowledge base.

However after reading the thread [QUOTE]METAOn Adolf Hitler, great man theory, and asking better historical questions[/QUOTE]

and some other content on this sub I can't help but think that this sub seems to lean quiet heavily on towards a marxist (with a small m) interpretation and in some cases a "new left" perspective.

I am not a historian or academic, and I may be slightly misusing the terminology, however I have studied in a sister field to History and as such I am aware of how interpretation tends towards rather cyclic theoretical trends which are often overemphasised in particularly Faculties or communities.

In short while you may be sick of us more "amateur" users constantly positing questions on what X great man had for breakfast, please keep in mind that individuals in power are very important and their personality matters. We can see this playing out in real life at the minute for better or worse with Angela Merkel and her response to the Refugee crisis, her actions were not expected and if we applied the thinking that that minimizes the individuals personality that seems to be an aim of some posters on this sub we would be left baffled. I apologize in advance for chosing a controversial example however I feel its apt as we can see in real time how a single politicians even in a well balanced secure democracy personal beliefs can have huge and potentially long term impacts. We can reject the 19th century belief of great men driving history forwards through the power of their will but putting forward that the idea that all peoples have equal agency in shaping history and that "powerful" personalities and beliefs don't have major impacts does just a great disservice to the goal of reaching a more complete understanding of events

Edit: I can't seem to add a META tag

I've heard numerous claims that it set back civilization, what truth is there in that for some of the more aggressive claims?

Almost every historian of the late Roman Empire repeats as fact that Stilicho was the son of a Vandal father and Roman mother. However, it seems like the only source for this is from Orosius 7.38:

Count Stilicho, who was sprung from the Vandals...

Orosius makes a lot of clearly false claims about Stilicho, saying that he wanted to persecute the Christians and giving him no credit for his defeat of Radagaisus. Meanwhile, Stilicho married into the family of the emperor, which seems unlikely for a "barbarian", especially one not of particularly notable barbarian birth. Are there other sources for Stilicho's heritage and if not, how much trust should we put into Orosius' claim?

So a little background... I am a Captain in the US Army with a BS in History. During college I worked full time, went to school full time, as well as went through a commissioning program. Because of my very busy schedule I didn't have the time required for the language requirement for a BA, hence the BS.

I am now looking to start pursuing my Master's and would like to complete it before I retire in 5 years. My preference would be a traditional class environment, but between deployments and moving duty stations every 2-3 years that isn't realistic or feasible. I've looked at some online programs and have been surprised to see that more large Universities are starting to offer online degrees. This obviously would be a much more realistic option for me. My only concern is that later, when I start to look at pursuing my PhD, whether an online Master's would be accepted or frowned upon. I obviously don't want to waste my time or money. Does anyone have any insight? Can anyone verify that on online Master's won't be a waste of my time?

Thank you.

And a sub-question: was the Iraqois confederacy a single cultural group or were the member tribes fairly distinct?

In some internet discussion, one guy claimed that Prussia of Frederick the Great had greater freedom of speech than modern United States. This is so unbelievable that i asked him for sources, he of course refused to cite any, as expected.

I did some research of my own and found that freedom of speech in 18th century context meant criticism of religion was allowed, not criticism of king, the government, the army and war.

Is this accurate impression? What kind of speech and press would be allowed in 18th century Prussia?

I've heard it might have been one of the earliest methods of hunting and the reason why people are so good at long-distance running today.

It's a simple question but I've wondered this since I saw a depiction of this in a documentary in which modern hunters used a plastic bottle to carry water. If it really was one of the earliest methods of hunting then there might have not been that many methods to carry water, no?

Hi all!

Recently a friend claimed the 68 riots in Chicago were the reason the Democratic party has superdelegates now. I thought they were first used in 84, and more than a decade and three electoral cycles seems slow reaction time if the riots were the cause. Anyone want to help me sort out what happened?

I understand that North Africa has a more Arab population, but there were bound to be sub-Saharan Africans there too right?

They say status quo antebellum since there were no territorial losses, but the British raided and burned Washington, right? Further at a glance it seems the British won many more victories, i remmeber hearing that the only undisputed American victory was at New Orleans and technically it was only after the war ended, but the parties hadnt heard the news.

Could anyone recommend a book or a documentary on the rise and fall of the roman empire? If its a book I would like a good read, size doesnt matter, but I dont like books which are intended for historians or professors. I would love something to get me into the topic first.

I'm doing an assignment about the influence of men through 1850-1950 where I need to write about men who played a role in the women's movement throughout the 100 years. I've read quite a bit about John Stuart Mill already. I've also looked at Keir Hardie, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence and Ramsy Mcdonald. However this doesn't range through the 100 years. I'm looking for any more sources from that might help me move further in my research, or that might offer a counter point to the perspective I've gotten so far. Thanks!

Who or what group of people decided on the names? When was this?