Is there a basis to the argument that the capital of China shouldn't be Beijing and it should be a southern city? Did the communists just pick Beijing willy-nilly? Was Beijing chosen due to picking Mandarin as the standard language? Because of the Imperial Palace of the Qing dynasty existing there?

I was wandering, what the oldest written recepe is. Would it still be tasty today?

My understanding of the situation is that black radicalism tended towards either Garveyite nationalism or CPUSA associated Marxism.

Were the leftist radicals ever prominent in the black community? Were they a regular feature of the black landscape or just a phenomenon amongst intellectuals and artists, like Langston Hughes?

Associated question - ideologically and practically speaking, did the black leftists uniformly line up behind orthodox (for the time) Marxism, or were different strains represented, like Trotskyism, anarchism, council communism, and so on?

Besides the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle and Henry of Livonia, there isn't much I can find. I've been writing something for my own pleasure, and need some primary sources as I've mostly been sourcing The Northern Crusades by Eric Christiansen as well as other authors such as Peter Lock, the book Livonia, Rus’ and the Baltic Crusades in the Thirteenth Century by Anti Selart and the companion to the chronicle of Henry by Carsten Selch Jensen and co, all of which, I'm sure you know, are secondary sources.

Does anyone have anything they can point me to regarding, say, writings about Albert of Riga by his contemporaries or some stuff about the Livonian Sword brothers? Sorry if this seems like a long-winded question, I just can't really find anything besides the Rhymed Chronicle and the Chronicle of Henry. Any answers are appreciated, I just need to be pointed in the right direction really.

I've heard people say that he was just a myth, and not a real person. How much is there to this point? Was Jimmu a real person, and can the foundation of the Japanese monarchy really be attributed to him?

Pretty much what it says on the tin. The conflicts in Myanmar (Burma...I'm unclear on the proper nomenclature here as Myanmar is the official name, but last time the country was in American news, articles were pointing out that that was a military coup imposition and Burma was better...I should add "what do I call this country" to my question), definitely up to our 1996 limit, have been called the "longest-running civil war" and "longest ongoing war." The immediate predecessor to the strife was British colonialism, but what came before that? Did/how did the British patterns of empire mess up the balance that existed before, and what did that balance look like?

Every depiction of the D-Day invasion shows the infantry landing against nearly untouched fortifications. I can understand why they did not use bombers to attack the fortifications if the area was fortified with AA guns... but I don't understand why the they didn't clear a path onto the beach with heavy naval guns. Was the reason that the naval guns were too inaccurate? That seems unlikely, since in that era, destroyers routinely engaged in ship to ship battles and ships are a much more difficult target than massive concrete fortifications in front of the beach.

Maybe I am looking about this from the wrong perspective but it appears to me that the allies did not make much use of the tremendous naval firepower they had at their disposal when conducting the D-Day landings.

I am reading Carol Karlsen's Devil in the Shape of a Woman and she says at multiple points that "women continued to join the church in proportionately larger numbers than men"

Was it that male populations were smaller? Or perhaps men were more reluctant to go through the church joining process?

Hello,

I am an American student thinking about enrolling in a graduate program in history focused on another country besides the United States. My particular focus is on contemporary South Korea (1950s-present). As I understand it, one must be comfortable in (at least reading and writing) the language of the country they want to study, so that they can do original research and understand primary/secondary sources in that language. In other words, I need to be at least at the intermediate level in Korean in order to be accepted into the top programs in the states.

I was thinking about doing my master's degree in Korea (at Seoul National University, or a similar college) in order to master the language while getting the degree done. These programs are generally free (or very cheap) for foreigners, so it doesn't seem like a bad deal. My only concern is, if I come back to the United States and apply for a PhD program here, will admissions officers see me as a bad candidate since I did my master's abroad? Am I putting myself at a disadvantage by doing my master's abroad instead of at one of the more well-known big name American universities?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Is the frequency of trade at that time comparable as well?

TL;DR boyfriend doesn't think visiting historic sites is beneficial, and I'm at a loss for understanding why it's matters to me.

I'm an upper division undergrad studying history. My boyfriend doesn't have a similar interest in history as me, and I'm actually really glad because my goal is to be a teacher who simply gets students to appreciate history. He and I often get in discussions about the elements of history that 'matter'. We were just discussing why it matters to physically visit a historical place. His argument is that most times pictures are enough, and that the laymen history you receive at those places is easily accessible online. He and I agree that preservation of historically significant places is important. Thing is, I am having trouble understanding my own argument. I emotionally feel that visiting historic sites is beneficial, but can't seem to out arguments together as to why that is.

So, asking all historians, do you think physically visiting historical sites benefits us? If so, in what ways?

There's a rather curious religious custom described in the Mishnah, and I was hoping someone who knows Greek and/or Roman religious practices could shed some light on it.

There's a discussion about non-Jewish forms of worship that, to the uninformed observer, would look like contempt, rather than worship. One example given is "throwing a stone to Merkulis" (Mercury?). Is throwing rocks at a representation of a diety a documented religious practice in the Mediterranean world from this period?

I'm really interested in religious History, music History, and Chinese history, and will be double majoring in music education and general history as of next semester. My focus leans more towards anthropology, in how it relates to those things, but that's not a possible undergrad degree just because of how the credits overlap.

My adviser is in the music ed department though, and besides telling me that I should try picking up Chinese and Latin (I already know Spanish), that they weren't really aware of much else that I should do, other than (potentially) declaring a concentration in my history degree.

Any advice?

[deleted]

[deleted]

How were airline companies able to convince people that flying in a metal tube, 30,000 feet in the air, across the country was safe?

How did people react to things like turbulence and long delays?

Hello -

I was hoping to get multiple perspectives/advice on what should be my first book to read on world war II. I do read a lot of history etc but I have never dipped my toe into all that is WWII. I was trying to break down my study into a few different categories, though I don't know that this is the best method. The first question I wanted to answer and what I'm hoping to get book recommendations on is What was the cause of WWII? What are the things that led to WWII starting? Any books to recommend? Where should I start? Is this even a good place to begin or should I start with an overall book on the war versus this smaller piece?

Please help me begin this journey the right away!

[deleted]

I assume there were some Nazi soldiers who did not share Hitler's ideas. He became more and more radical the longer he was in office, so I assume there were some who worked for the government in the beginning, but did they desert as he began becoming more ruthless? If so, what happened to them?

He used the mechanical "computer" as evidence of this. As far as I know that device actually existed. How accurate is his claim about steam power?