Everyone can think of scenes from movies where two armies are standing opposite each other in straight lines, before both charging in for combat.

How did this happen in real life? Would armies have intelligence on the movements of enemy armies, or would it be by luck?

Was this type of battle as common as the movies cause us to believe?

I enjoy history for the drama and grandeur, but the primary motivating factor stems from a yearning to understand of the world. However, as I work in finance, I simply cannot turn every stone and peruse every primary source to grasp the nature of historical events. I must inevitably relinquish control, to some extent, to an author who curates a deeper knowledge.

I recently purchased a book that encapsulates this conflict. I listen to "The Rest is History" podcast, as it is the perfect type of light history for exercise or commuting. Both presenters also write books, and I decided to grab Tom Holland's book "Dominion" because the subject matter interested me. Something convinced me, after I bought it, to then see how my favorite subreddit r/AskHistorians viewed his work. I fell into a rabbit hole on historiography, and I truly believe I read every post on this work, and most posts on his other works to understand the criticism.

It pains me to say it was not favorable. This book is over 400 pages, and because I have no intention on becoming an expert on the Christian influence on modern sensibilities, it would inform my knowledge of that topic greatly, and therefore my views. Over the course of years, as I read a greater variety of sources on different topics, I may one day have the ability to refute with evidence, but that would be quite a slow moving shift.

I also found the subreddit's book list, but many of the best resources are dry, academic, non-narrative textbooks. I studied math in college, so I am accustomed to textbooks and academic papers, but I find history presented in a similar fashion much less engaging. So, I with all that, I actually have three questions.

1. Are my expectations of accuracy and entertainment unreasonable?
2. Would you still read the book or return it, even if the prose stirred you?
3. How do you deal with the conflict between an exhaustive, personal understanding and that which comes from the conclusions of another?

Given how prominent of a role the colloseum played in ancient rome, I was wondering whether there are any reflections on the institution handed down to us? Whether that be critical or praise or just reflections into the appeal of it.

I'm hugely interested in this time period, but it has occured to me that I've never come across anything that details the nature of the training for NKVD intelligence officers, especially those who were to be involved in espionage outside of the Soviet Union.

I'm curious if anybody knows what the selection process was like – could one simply walk in and apply, or did you need to have been a party member for a certain amount of time? Were there age or gender limits? I also wonder what the training itself looked like – what exercises would prospective officers have to complete, and how difficult was it to pass the course? What were the repercussions of failure?

I'd also appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of some good books on the matter.

Thank you!

What I want to ask is how do I start reading on Zoroastrian religion? Other than secondary sources, how do I begin with primary sources?

What is the Avesta? What does it consist of and how is it organised? What other religious works other than the Avesta exist? (The Denkard, Bundahisn?) and what English translations of all of these exist?

If possible, can anyone here point out all the existing English translations of the Shahnameh, and highlight the most complete and best translation among them?

Adding on to that, what secular pre-Islamic Iranian works survive and where can I find English translations for those texts?

Bradford opens his article with the following:

"The growth of a [Robert E.] Lee legend is greatly to be deplored, most of all by Lee's warmest admirers. ‘ One may search in vain for any defect in him,’ says one of the latest historians of the war. ‘Indeed, the perfection of Lee becomes somewhat oppressive. One would welcome the discovery of a shortcoming in him, as redeeming him to humanity.’

This is unfair, but not unnatural, when one considers the attitude of Lee’s Southern admirers.

‘He was never behind time at his studies, never failed in a single recitation, was perfectly observant of the rules and regulations of the institution,’ says an old teacher. ‘Throughout his whole student life he performed no act which his pious mother could not have fully approved,’ says another. I do not believe this is true. I hope it is not true. If it is true, it ought to be concealed, not boasted of.

This is the sort of thing that made [George] Washington odious to the young and remote from the mature for generations. ‘In all essential characteristics Lee resembled Washington,’ says Mr. Rhodes, with much justice.

But we know that, in spite of ill-judged idolatry, Washington was not a prig. Neither was Lee, but a man, of warm flesh and blood, like the rest of us. No one could have had his large and tender sympathy for human weakness who had not known human weakness himself. Above all, those who knew him, from the common soldier to the president of the Confederacy, bear universal testimony that Lee had charm.

Now, no prig ever yet had charm. Therefore I refuse to believe that he said — at any rate, in those words — to Magruder in Mexico, ‘I am but doing my duty, and with me, in small matters as well as in large ones, duty must come before pleasure.’"

We also know that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was also elected to the U.S. Presidency in 1869, succeeding Andrew Johnson, who had succeeded Abraham Lincoln as President in 1865. With Lee being popular among Southerners, was there anyone who ever suggested he run for President?

Subsequently, were there any descendants of Lee who were encouraged to run for political office?

I don’t want to want to spark a debate about the merit’s of any particular camp, but I am curious, if I was to ask historians to look at the aggregate of history and explain the common threads what would the most common categories be?

I am from the Southern United States (though I don't believe this is, specifically, a southern tradition). And I was taught to make a wish while tossing a coin in a fountain. Is this a recent tradition (we now have the ability to build fountains where we choose to more easily) or does this have earlier origins?

Christ as TWO persons? That’s the “Nestorian” heresy. Christ as ONE nature? That’s the “Monophysite” heresy. He’s got to be ONE person TWO natures. But why? Where did this come from?

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Sexuality & Gender! It's only recently in the English-speaking world that delineated sex and gender as two different concepts has become the norm, but Sexuality & Gender has a long history as separate, and related, constructs. Know something about the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft you'd like to share? About how people in the past negotiated sexual and gender identity? About societies who created space for people to exist beyond a binary? Share away!

I'm imagining this situation because of a scene in the game Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

The protagonist of the game is the son of a blacksmith, illiterate obviously, who after a series of events becomes a retainer for Racek Kobyla, Hetman of the captive Wenceslaus IV.

The player has the freedom to have someone teach the main character how to read; this ends up being a scribe in the town of Úžice.

This always intrigued me because, while I always figured most laypeople and commoners of the times wouldn't really bother with learning how to read and write, it made me realize I don't actually know if this is true.

So let's say I'm a common man living in a medieval city, not a serf but not a rich man nor a noble nor a scholar; would I have any way of being taught how to read and write? If so, who would probably offer this service?
I imagine that if it were possible it would be a member of the clergy or a monk.

Even if we assumed I were able to learn how to read and write what would my "reading opportunities" be afterwards? I imagine a largely illiterate society wouldn't really have much writing floating about.

Was there any reading material available to laypeople and non-scholars? Would a commoner be ever allowed to consult the texts kept by the local clergy or administration?

recently, it seems like the 'monks' have passed down a lot, notably the recipes for things noticed when googling a Portuguese Pastel de (forgot) and German Lebkuchen cookies. is this just food related? why do monks control the narrative? do they really mean monks ie. religious scholars like we have today?

So I’ve been going down the path of learning traditional Chinese, however I started learning the history of the language before I actually started learning the language it’s self. I know a bit about the traditional/simplified split, but not a whole lot about the connections between Japanese and Chinese. Now that I’m sitting here in a Tokyo bar, my head hurts from all of the characters I know but have different pronunciations! Can anyone help me with a time line? Thank you!

I’m writing a historiographical essay on miscegenation and anti-miscegenation efforts in the United States. It’s my first time writing a paper like this, but I have been making progress. So far, I’ve managed to find some good sources. These include “The Beginnings of Miscegenation” by Carter G. Woodson from 1918 and “White Fright” by Jane Dailey in 2020.

However, I’ve had trouble pinning down a good article that was published pre-1910. I have been fiddling with JSTOR to try and locate one, but have had no luck so far. I know that the Civil War and Reconstruction generated plenty of historical perspectives, like the Dunning school of thought. So I am very interested in using historians’ views from that time period.

If anyone could provide some insight on historians at the time and some sources (preferably a journal article), I would be very grateful. I apologize if I’m being to vague or anything. I’ll be happy to clarify any details if that makes things easier.

I know just about nothing about it as I'm not American myself. But I want to have a deep idea of the history of the United States. What books and in what order should I read? Thank you!

Do we know how complex the society was that domesticated chickens?

Hello, I have a question regarding the HJ (Hitler Youth). For many years I knew that two of my deceased relatives participated in the HJ;one being in Bann 119, in Stuttgart, and another in Bann 504, in Vienna. Are there any avalibe records on these two mentioned groups? I have been searching the internet, and yet to find anything definitive. Thanks.