IMO these sources usually considers Vikings as savages and cruel murderers. Do historians usually consider these sources (usually written by monks and other religious figures) reliable at all? I just read some history "nonfictions" and I can see some bias towards blaming them as murderers and uncivilised warrior-tribes.

I'm not talking specifically about what happens, but are there disagreements when it comes to interpreting those events? What are some of the more interesting disagreements?

I've looked at the cases of the Hungarian Revolution and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and was just wondering if force was the primary/only way in which the Soviets maintained power or control over Eastern European satellite states?

Did somebody do the count? I heard the affirmation that if we stick to pure numbers more executions occurred in the periods before and after the Reign of Terror that during it, but that this period has been vilified because the people killed were higher class instead of lower class.

Does this hold at all or is it just revisionism?

I've seen it referenced here and elsewhere that Gorbachev didn't trust Reagan would share missile shield technology because the US had not shared ag tech with the USSR. What kinds of ag tech was he hoping for?

I'm curious about things like: How would I be treated? How much familiarity would I have with Aztec rituals? What stages of preparation would I have to go through? Are there any known cases of sacrifices being freed or escaping before the big day?

I know it is wrong. I just am curious HOW wrong.

Hey everyone, northerner here in the Deep South. I've been taught my whole life that the civil war was mainly about slavery. However, obviously people here have a different opinion.

I know the war was too complex to narrow it down to one issue, but I'm fairly certain slavery was the driving cause. Does anyone have any academic resources to back that up? Or any input is appreciated. Thanks

I've read that it was mostly a waiting game (starving out the opponent), but what if the sieger attacked? How did he conquer a castle?

I've been reading up a little on the war with Napoleon, and I keep reading that it was Britain's mastery of the seas that allowed them to prevent invasion, as well as fund their allies in mainland Europe. So now Im curious as to their naval strength, both from a merchant/commerce perspective, as well as a military perspective. How many various types of ships did they have, how many personnel served, how many officers, Etc.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

I've read that Japan was absolutely devastated from WW2 after firebombing major cities, and the dropping of atomic bombs. I've also read that Japan, during the time of war, have a strong sense of nationalism. So how were they able to let US help them when they were the enemies in the eyes of the Japanese? What were the comprised or changes in their Japanese nationalism concept? Does having no official military helped?

So my question is more about the methodology of History than actual fact. I hope it's not going to be deleted because it aims just a little bit about the present and the future. I'm really asking about the methodology and the way historians work. Note that I will talk using future tense but what I'm talking about might be already happening.

So, I'm used to seeing records on papers of archives, letters written by thinkers and authors, and so on. I have myself a book of Nietzsche with his first letters and his first written texts. Historians deal with a lot of primary sources written on paper.

But now that we have come to an electronic era... are you still going to work the same way? How will you collect the equivalent of letters written between people (e-mails, Facebook conversations perhaps) ? Isn't there any risk of false authenticity (could be easily modified), or any risk that the amount of records we have decreases with time because documents and sources are easier to lose on computers because they can be deleted?

I guess what I'm asking is how will historians deal with primary sources that were written directly on computers. Letters, texts, even art, all that made on computer today. How do you deal (or will you) with documents or sources made by the geniuses of today considering they are on computer and might not be as "fancy" as paper material (considering the slang words of the Internet and the fact that communications on Facebook or Skype will not be as fancy as 19th century hand written letters) ?

Do you think the fact that we're moving into a more virtual and technological era will change the methodology and the approach of historians on today's sources?

Thank you in advance, and sorry if the question is a bit off timeline.

Are there any War Journal and Campaign studies that anyone could suggest to me? Aside from Clausewitz & Wellingtons as well as Shermans Memoires. I'm looking for officers who would have had insight into the strategy, Logistics and tactics utilized during the war rather than a common soldiers. I don't have much preference for the time period, however Marian Reformed Rome, anything from the three kingdoms era china, and Seven Years War or Napoleonic are my main interests but I'd like to read anything to be honest.

(EDIT: Guerilla Warfare and/or revolutionary warfare studies suggestions are also appreciated)

Whenever I drive by a very old cemetery, I'm amazed at the size and detail of headstones. In today's money those would cost a small fortune. Did people spend exorbitant amounts of money on headstones at that time or is there another explanation?

What were the effects of the American Revolution on the British? How would a British historian tell the story?