Both historically and in contemporary politics, waves of immigration are frequently met with nativist tropes forecasting economic destruction. From what I've studied, I can't think of an example of that actually happening (with the exception of non-peaceful incursions), and I was wondering if any historians know of a case where immigration has been detrimental to a nation's economic health.

How is it possible that there were once people all over the earth who didn't have some sort of nationalistic pride over their heritage or their ancestry? I just don't get how that's possible.

Can one of you help explain?

Different answers for official independence and de facto independence are welcome.

Cavemen and very primitive societies must have done something to eliminate dead or rotten teeth, right?

I have a perception that Western European Christianity (in fact European Christianity in general) was unusually intolerant of other religions, and I wanted to know if I was correct or whether this is overblown. While Islamic societies had a degree of toleration for their non-Muslim subjects (specifically Christians and Hindus), Christian societies seemed totally intolerant of other religions, with subjects typically facing far more pressure to convert than those in other societies in similar circumstances, e.g. the Christianisation of Northern and Eastern Europe, and of the Americas. A notable exception might be Norman Sicily.

Was European Christianity's religious intolerance and missionary zeal unusual? What motivated it?

Especially after the battle of White Mountain, what brought Denmark into the war? The battle, from what I've read, seemed to have more or less ended the original Bohemian rebellion that started after the Defenestration of Prague. The leaders of the rebellion were taken care of and roman catholic rule had been reasserted in Bohemia. So why did Denmark feel the need to take part in a conflict over 300 miles from its borders, even if the leaders were both protestant? Hadn't the rebellion already "ended" at that point? (Also, I'm sure I have errors or misconceptions in my question, so feel free to point out any that you see.)

Would a lack of an incentive to popularize the west coast make California look more like Alaska today? Would there be any cultural or economic implications if the gold rush didn't happen?

Hey guys, I've got a book request. I'm looking for comprehensive but approachable books on the modern Middle East (post WWI). Anyone have any suggestions?

Been studying Ancient Rome so I looked into the Byzantine empire and its Theme system confused me a lot due to how different it is to the ancient legion system, so could someone explain how it worked to me, that would be great thanks.

As a child of the east and the west, I always wondered why half of my family always shook hands and the other half bowed. So does anyone have a reason why one half the world has no problem touching strangers and the half refrains?

Edit: I think that the impression I got for bowing in the Middle East is because of watching the news, where people in official capacities are meeting, thus a bow being a more formal greeting.

Edit 2: everyone is focusing on the Middle East, I did also say Far East where it was super common when I lived there (Japan and Korea) to bow rather than shake hands. This was 30 odd years ago, so handshakes are probably more common in the Far East now, but my question still hasn't been addressed. Thanks

I am currently doing an internal assessment evaluating the success D-day. Specifically, my topic is ‘to what extent did deficiencies in German strategic planning contribute to the success of Operation Overlord?’. Since I have a German focus, I am looking for sources about German defence systems, troop positioning etc. I am however having some trouble looking for sources about the Germans' anticipation and preparations for the allied invasion. Any suggested reads?

I'm a descendent of his, and would love to get a solid picture of the man and his thoughts & actions, especially in the midst of the highly simplified national discussion currently occurring regarding "the South," the Civil War, the Confederacy, etc. I'm a well-educated 29, so I'm looking for a full adult reading level bio here. Thank you in advance for your advice!

Logic would dictate that a global society capable of mass communication and a more educated population would make it harder to "rewrite history." Does this actually play out in the data?

For example, is the history of say the United States or Great Britain more accurate over the last few centuries as compared to 1000 years ago?

There is a lot of media that focuses around the Nazis searching for, and in some cases finding, lost treasures, alien and ancient technology to boost their war efforts.

It seems completely ridiculous but the idea must have come from somewhere. Are there cases of this happening outside of just the Nazis too?

Historian Tom Holland posits that Muhammad as a prophet was really a figure invented many years after Islam initially developed. To serve as sort of a unifying figure for the new religion and the new lands that came under it.

I'm wondering if there is a historical consensus over whether Muhammad was an actual historical figure who existed? Is there much non-Koranic evidence that references him from the period of time he would have lived?