I'm thinking about areas of history where sources exists, but which there exists little scientific research/writing on for some reason. I'm about to write my bachelor thesis, and our professors strongly recommended we chose a subject which there was little focus on from historians. However, I'm unsure how I should proceed in finding out which areas match those criteria.

Can anyone suggest some parts of history I can look more deeply into, or give me some tips on how to find out for myself? I honestly I have no idea how to proceed.

When did this begin and how?

So I'm reading about the Terror/Stalin's purges/etc and the book mentions that, when it was thought that Moscow would be taken by the Germans, the NKVD burned a lot of their records or shipped them deeper into Russia, presumably to keep word of what they were doing from the wider world. This is on top of stories about how guards would execute prisoners out in the wilderness and return with their fingers to enter the finger prints into their files and how the camp doctors would falsify the records of those who were worked to death to show that they had died of more prosaic, natural causes rather than those of malnutrition and exposure.

So my question is...why did they keep these records at all? I mean, I understand that they probably weren't planning to have their country invaded and all that, but what purpose did it serve if Stalin seemed to execute the executioners to keep them quiet and the NKVD did their best to keep the rest of the world from finding out?

Not sure if this is a question that can be answered definitively or from a historian's perspective, but I'd be interested to see if there was ever thought on this subject.

(I guess the same question could be asked about the Nazis and the Holocaust too. If I'm not mistaken the Nazis kept extensive records of their activities.)

So my question

I am currently reading Robert G. Hoyland's "Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam" and have become completely fascinated with the subject. Can anyone suggest some further reading? Thank you, in advance.

1. Did the Papal States ever invade other Papal States? What was the composition of the Papal Army like? Were citizens/subjects of the Papal States obligated to serve in a military like other feudal states in Europe between say 1300-1700?

2. What was life under Papal Authority like? Was there a "nobility" of the Papal States outside of the church?

Also, if the allies abandoned Poland like they did Czechoslovakia, what were Hitlers plans after that? Annexing Alsace-Lorraine? The German speaking part of Belgium?

Hey all! I posted this question earlier in /r/askhistory, and two people told me to repost it here, so here I am. First of all, why the hell are there two forums for exactly the same purpose? It's just really confusing.

Moving on, my question is this: how did people prior to the enlightenment think of drugs? I'm an opiate addict (now retired, thankfully) and I always used to think that prohibition was this arbitrary modern invention, but now I'm being told that actually, the whole enterprise of drugs as being commodified happiness is a modern invention. In the past, drugs were simply not widely available enough to be abused, nor strong enough, like today's drugs, which were invented in the past 100 years mostly. Can someone enlighten me about this topic? I want to understand, basically from like a Kuhnian perspective, how the paradigm of drug use has shifted over the past 100,000 odd years. That's a pretty tall order, so if you have little anecdotal pockets of knowledge about this, that's obviously ok.

I'm posting this in /r/opiatesrecovery, so please do not fucking respond with tired cliches about willpower and demonizing drug users for lack of self control. That may be true, but it's just not useful to say such things.

It's somewhat bothersome that for thousands of year human societies practiced slavery throughout the world (from the wiki article on slavery: "Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies; in more recent times, slavery has been outlawed in all countries...").

It's tough to read things like Plato's 'Republic' and not question how brilliant individuals couldn't even fathom a society without slaves of some sort, even if they were treated well in an idealized utopia. I know that abolitionist movements have existed through much of recorded history as well, but I still don't quite understand why it took the last 6 or 7 centuries for these ideas to begin to take hold across Europe and the rest of the world.

Any help in figuring this out other than just saying "the Enlightenment" or "people got nicer" would be greatly appreciated. Looking for input a bit more complex than an ELI5 entry.

Are there any constitutional or legislative obstacles keeping a former president from running for a senate seat, for instance? If not, why haven't more presidents sought to stay in some sort of office after leaving the presidency?

Starvation was a threat to the poor even well into the 20th century because of war, but when was the last time that the average Englishman faced starvation due to crop failure? Crop failure seemed to happen pretty commonly in the medieval era, but no longer happens. When did it go away?

Recently I've developed a bit of a fascination with Napoleon Bonaparte, and he seems to be one of the most influential human beings in the history of the civilized world. From my understanding, his Napoleonic Code brought along the end of Feudalism and established individual rights for the lower and middle classes. He proved the value of meritocratic promotion and his military strategies are still studied worldwide today. He spread religious tolerance and appreciation for the arts and sciences. He ended the Spanish Inquisition and his emancipation and assimilation of the Jews and Protestants even earned him the title of "antichrist" from the Pope. His ideals and ambitions literally shaped the modern world.

However, I had to learn about all of this on my own, since my public education painted him as merely a bloodthirsty tyrant. I understand that he fought many wars, but from everything I've read, they mostly seem like defensive engagements. Why does Napoleon have such a negative image when he seems like one of the greatest and most capable leaders in history?