I can't seem to find anything that specifically states FPTP is our official method nor can I find anything that nails down just how the Founding Fathers decided on this method.

I tried Articles I & II of the Constitution but didn't see anything. I've heard it had something to do with the "Jeffersonian Revolution" but couldn't find anything down that avenue either.

Were there other examples of voting methods at the time - either contemporary or historical that the FF's drew upon?

Was there even a debate about how votes would be cast and attributed?

Who was on what side?

Where can I do some reading for myself?

Thank you all!

I remember learning about Native Americans back in elementary and intermediate school, but I took all of that information for granted (in my defense I was young and it didn't really pique my interest). Going through college, I studied a lot about world cultures and history, but a recent hiking trip into the Adirondacks recently made me realize how little I know about our own history. Since I live (and have lived and vacationed) in the region where these three tribes occupied, I would love to learn some history about what may have happened in the forests all around me.

So anybody have some great information? articles? a good book? places of interest?

I only know of two theories when it comes to the origins of the Quran:

1. The religious belief that the prophet was given the book, word by word, line by line, by God.
2. That the prophet was given the book, line by line, by professional poets of the time.

Well, I guess I could include the third theory that's making the rounds these days:

3. The plagiarism theory (?) - The book was pre-written before his time and the prophet just claimed ownership of it without anyone knowing/questioning this.

All three theories assume that the prophet was, for the most part, illiterate. The complexity of the language, poetry and the subjects in the book would be beyond someone of his social status. It's a big book, it's a difficult language and skill and it would be amazing for someone's first attempt at publishing to be this good.

The first theory does not allow for the prophet to co-write the book. The third theory (let's just get this over with) also supposes that he did not co-write it, but it was written before his time.

The second theory (the poets) also states that separate poets wrote it for him without his help or input.

It was all done for him, but without him.

There are multiple sub-theories for the poet theory, as to who was behind this, who found the poets, who came up with the ideas behind the poetry, who funded this, but let's not get into that.

I've been hearing people say that the prophet wrote the Quran himself.

I have a few questions for historians:

1. Did anyone in the prophet's time accuse him of writing it himself?
   I don't mean "you're making this up... no angel came to you" but hear/read the actual verses and believe that the prophet was the poet behind the verses?

The poet theory states that certain verses had a recognizable style that could be attributed to poets that were the prophet's contemporaries. Did someone recognize this at the time?

2. Are there now indications that tell us that the prophet did indeed write the book himself without any help? Is there any basis to that? What are these indications?

3. How did this idea - that the prophet wrote the Quran himself - come about? Is this more Great Man theory? While other theories propose that he got the book through divine inspiration or a funded, motivated, organized group of people, what would make people think that one man came up with the idea of a religion, came up with the rules, wrote the whole book, invented the practice and worked on spreading the religion and then was head of the group, leading its politics, warfare, etc.

Is it not more likely, and I'm speaking in terms of what the average non-historian person thinks, that more than one person worked on this project? (Rhetorical)

I see a lot of Great Man theories - from Steve Jobs to Hitler (hence the weekly "what did Hitler think of this/that") attributing so much, if not all, to one man and one man alone. Were Great Man-type theories always so prevalent in the public's mind? (Not rhetorical, I'm really curious). I'm thinking that 2-hour films obviously don't help, as they tend to overstate the importance of the protagonist and relegate other characters to sidekicks at best, cameos at worse and omit them entirely at worst.

My Pastor on this last Sunday used an illustration describing how Joshua Chamberlain and his 300 troops made a valiant defense during the battle of Gettysburg, getting whittled down to only 80 soldiers by the enemy 4000 confederates, only to then perform a valiant charge and subsequently capturing all 4000 of the confederates.
While this all sounds pretty amazing, I had not heard of this before and wonder if someone could verify, debunk or give a more accurate version of the event.

I'm haven't decided on what I want my major to be in college and I'm not quite sure what sort of career I'd like to have, but I've always enjoyed history, specifically that of the ancient Mediterranean. I think it would be great to have a job or career that involves ancient history but I've always felt like jobs involving history are restricted to teaching.

What can I do with a history major? What sort of jobs will be available to me, and to the historians on this subreddit, what do you enjoy most about your job?

I don't know much about the subject, so I might say some silly things here. I know that although different societies in different places of the world dealt with homosexuality in very different ways throughout history, but it was only in the end of the 19th century that it was finally seem as an identity, rather than just a sexual act. But I don't know about transsexuality. I've never heard of anyone in history that could actually be identified as a transsexual person before the 70's. Call me ignorant but to me, all this sounds much more like some kind of culturally influenced aspect of human sexuality than something actually biological or psychological, given that they basically seem to want to assume the opposite gender's gender roles to feel like their "true selves".

Sure, there's also the disease (if it can really be called a disease, I don't really know how to call it) in which an individual's psychology tells them they belong in the gender opposite from their bodies, which totally justifies a gender swap, but, in a fantasy society where men and women are treated completely the same way, would there even be transsexuals?

(I hope I'm making this question in the right place. Sorry if I should ask anywhere else)

From the studies I'm aware of, they all seem to be published in economics journals and by scholars working in economics departments.

Is cliometrics not studied in History departments? Do academic historians who use other methods not respect it? What's their take on it?

I need to know what technologies were created because of WW1 directly. Thanks.

Did the best composers in history thrive with flawed instruments?

i think i get the basic concept that historiography is the study of history as a discipline but i may be wrong..

so what really is historiography and why is it important , i'm interested in a doing a history degree next year (UK) and my teachers keep saying its important to get a grasp of it

In the history textbook in Indonesian school, its been taught that Indonesia has been colonialized for 3.5 century by the Dutch.(a few years by the England, and Japan). But at that time, the Indonesian country isnt even formed yet, and the purpose of the Dutch journey is to trade(mostly). Although it slowly turned into a divide an conquer to the local monarchy. I just want some clarification about this part, some source would be appreciated.

Im sorry if this question has been asked before. If someone would kindly share the link, i would gladly delete the post.

I only mention those particular cities from a quick look at a map. I don't have specific conflicts or blockades in mind, other than recalling that Portugal, Spain and Venice had powerful navies, and that Batavia (Jakarta) was a major location for the East Indies trade.

Would the countryside be totally devastated with burning fields and villages and hanging corpses everywhere, or was it customary to leave the peasants alone, maybe only demanding tribute and rations for the troops? If there are instances of both extremities, I'dd be really happy if the background to that kind of behaviour could be given.

:edit: To clarify, I'm mostly interested in the negative effects of the passing army, and how commonly they happened. I don't care whether this strain was caused by a hostile or friendly army.

[deleted]

Not sure if this question belongs here or not, but I'm looking to find the most accurate picture or drawing of Achilles' shield as described in the Iliad.

If not, what would be better to read?