By "true last remnants" I mean the last true Roman citizens and towns to get captured.

Hello AskHistorians, I've recently taken a position teaching full time U.S. History and after getting through last year as a part time U.S. teacher, I'd really like to step my game up and really take a step forward with my content base. I've already read both of the textbooks and any AP book I can get my hands on to increase my base but these are all generally related to testing. I finished Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States this summer but I'd really like to find more books or articles that I can read and prep with. I've planned on using the Popular Questions (FAQ) that relates to the course content I'm teaching, I just would rather take the time to learn the answers that you all have instead of "borrow" the ideas on those questions.

Also not sure if this is the correct subreddit, I tried looking at American History but that sub is practically dead.

Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.

EDIT: Thank you everyone! I'll start checking off these books one at a time, very grateful for the amazing response!

How did English go from "þes sy englisc" to "This is English"? Where did the extra characters go? How did the words change?

I understand it wasn't instant, but what caused this huge change?

Throwaway account because this is such a touchy topic.

Pretty much what's in the title. I understand that certain men around him, like Goebbels, had made anti-Jewish expressions, but I'm interested in the primary sources that made the world realize Adolf Hitler himself was against Jews.

The only woman I can think of off the top of my head who's popularly supposed to have been gay is Queen Anne of the United Kingdom.

My wife suspects this is simply because there are massively more famous male historical figures than female, more "great people" to "claim" as it were. But is there more to it than that? I mean, never-married, strong female Elizabeth I would seem a good candidate for such a debate, but I rarely see it mooted.

Before the Constitutio Antoniniana, legionaries were recruited from citizens and auxiliaries were recruited from non-citizens, but that policy must have stopped after citizenship became universal. What exactly happened to the legions and the auxilia, and how did recruitment change afterwards?

Howdy folks,

So, when i was searching the sidebar before asking this question, i found this in relation to the concept of presentism:

Academic rigor is a slipping in this sub, and will be addressed. For those of you who may not understand. If you want to criticize Churchill, Gandhi, Columbus, Caesar, George Washington on moral issues, the decisions they made, and why they made them, you must consider what they knew, when they knew it, and why it was that way. Don't criticize Columbus for human rights concepts that wouldn't exist for another 250 years. Don't get upset at Gandhi for doing something that was perfectly normal culturally for him. Don't criticize Churchill for acting completely within the Victorian value system he was raised in.

This concept confuses me. How do historians avoid excusing the immoral actions of people in the past; to take the examples of Churchill and Washington, there were people saying that colonialism was wrong and that Bengal should be given food, and that slavery was wrong and the Natives were humans whilst they were alive. Yet the concept presented above seems to excuse their actions on the grounds that they didn't know any better, an idea i have difficulty squaring with the existence of alternative viewpoints during their eras. People were telling them this was wrong but they didn't listen.

What i'm driving at here is to what extent to historical personalities enjoy 'the benefit of the past' when we come to judge their actions and deeds? Why do we give the guys named in the quote a pass but not, say, Stalin or Mussolini?

Help me out here?

My daughter asked this today are a part of a larger discussion about gender stereotypes. Anyone have insight?

I have seen a lot of discussion about causes of the Civil War. Usually talking about slavery, states rights, and things like that. But almost always, people are just talking about the reasons why the South was willing to go to war. These reasons don't fully explain the North's position.

To simply say that the war was "about slavery" would give one this flowery view that the white people of the North loved blacks so much that they were willing to go to war and die just so that the blacks wouldn't have to be slaves anymore. And I don't buy that for one moment. So what were the North's REAL motivations?

I've heard that the North just wanted to protect the union. But why was that so important to them? Why was it so important that they were willing to send their people to fight?

Could it also have been something similar to the wars that we have today, where the leaders simply tell the people that they are fighting for other people's freedom, but they are actually fighting to give more wealth and power to those in charge?

[deleted]

I'm a Brit. Understandably Agincourt is spoken of in legendary, almost mystical terms in the UK (on the same level as the Battle of Britain). But I wonder how it is for Frenchmen? Is the focus mostly on Joan of Arc and the final years of the war (a typical English education never really mentions what happened at the war's end--which I suppose is because "we" lost)? How do the French feel about Agincourt or Crécy?

Did they do quick repairs and patchwork to get back in the fight if the damage was sizable enough or would it have to be repaired at a dock? I saw a video of a carrier that appeared to have a roughly 10 foot wide hole in the middle of the launch deck and it got me curious.

I'm attempting to write a paper on the end of the iconic group B rally monster era. Being a huge rally fan, this time captures something that is missing in today's rally racing. Any help is greatly appreciated and I'd love to know more about this topic!