I've been listening to Dan Carlin a lot recently, and one of the things he stresses is that he's not a historian, only a fan of history or "history buff." He obviously has a tremendous amount of knowledge within certain historical disciplines, so I'm just wondering what it takes for a person to be considered a legitimate historian. Is it something achieved strictly through formal education?

From what, admiringly little, I've learned about imperial Chinese history it seems that the Confucian system of government for imperial china consists of a cast of bureaucrats promoted through merit under the control of a feudal cast of hereditary rulers. How effective, in practice, was the "meritocracy" in identifying and promoting effective bureaucrats? How has this system of promoting bureaucrats changed over the 2500 years of imperial Chinese history? Did the imperial examinations implemented halfway through the tang dynasty successful bring talented individuals into office?

Hi, everyone!

Please forgive me if this is not an appropriate submission for this subreddit. I will delete it right away if it isn't.

I'm interested in reading several books about Germanic and/or "barbarian" peoples, but would like to make sure I'm buying the best possible translations (into English). I want to read:

The Gallic Wars by Caesar

Germania and Agricola by Tacitus

The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede

The Origins and Deeds of the Goths by Jordanes

A History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours

Two Lives of Charlemagne by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer

These are easy to find but again, I want to try and find the best translations. Thank you!

In history class, my teacher mentioned that Stalin treated Mao very rudely when he visited the USSR, and was in general quite disdainful of him. Why is this? Was it due to ideological differences, racial bias, or a combination of both?

Thanks!

I've had a difficult time finding details of the path some (Ashkenazi) Jews took to end up in Romania/Ukraine by the 18th-20th centuries after the Jewish-Roman Wars of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Here are some clarifying and additional questions to tack on:

• What were the main areas in which they stopped along the way?

• How long did they stay in each place?

• What was the reason moving again?

• How did they decide which direction to go in each instance? For that matter, how did they decide which direction to go in the first place when leaving Jerusalem?

I understand that only a portion of those that set out in that general direction ended up in the area I'm asking about (Romania/Ukraine), and that may be why I've yet to come up with much on my own. I also understand that this question covers a huge swath of history, so even partial answers are greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the help. This is a brand new account, but I know you guys are great from experience.

Is there any reason not to believe it, maybe based on her reputation?

Why and when did horoscopes become a part of mainstream american culture? They appear on magazines and discussed casually yet they're non-religious.

I was reading about Marine Smedley Butler and in his wikipedia article it talks about how he was initially laughed out of politics for his warnings about, and efforts to stop, an attempted coup d'etat in the U.S. shortly after WWII. The article then says something like, "Later evidence would show that Smedley was right about the coup." That seems like a very understated way of saying "holy FUCK the American Federal goddamn government was almost overthrown!"

So, was there an attempted overthrow? Or is this just crazy conspiracy stuff? And if there was, how much of our asses did Smedley save? And why the hell isn't this more common knowledge? Seems like, if its true, its kind of a bid deal.

Thanks in advance.

I was curious why this discrepancy. I know the new laws weren't well enforced but they at least existed. Why did this happen?

I'm familiar with the meaning of aborigine (a person, animal, or plant that has been in a country or region from earliest times) and I sometimes see Native Americans or First Nations referred to as aboriginal. What I'm wondering is why Australian aborigines seem to be the only native people (at least in my experience) referred to as Aborigines consistently. Is there a linguistic or historical reason for the use of the term primarily for them? Thanks for any information!

And if it is, what makes it so?

Asking from within the U.S. as someone who's only ever lived here. It seems like it's not uncommon to hear the U.S. Civil War and it's facets mentioned by figures from all over the world in a fairly familiar tone.

Is it because we were one of the last nations to abolish slavery and that made the war a grotesque world set piece? Was it because some generals, like Sherman, became famous beyond our borders? Or is it possibly just because the U.S. in the 20th century dominated the movie industry and our pop culture clout simply spread knowledge like that?

I guess asked another way: why did a civil war that happened in a smallish, youngish country ever make its way into the rest of the world's knowledge?

Also, glad to stand corrected if I'm simply reading the signs wrong and it's not particularly known outside the U.S.