I’m writing a research paper on the genocide that took place in Guatemala but am having trouble finding credible data on the killings that took place year by year there. Can anyone recommend a data website or articles? Please and thank you?

He everyone,

I am a History major looking to get into museum work (planning on attending Grad school for Museology). What would be a good major to pair with History for a double major?

Example: Calling the audience mother****ers and other colorful terms (but lovingly)

Probably German citizens knew that Jews and other minorities were doing hard labour in concentration camps, but were they aware of extermination camps like Auschwitz or Treblinka?

I've read that the Gauls were known at the time to cultivate hemp and some Gaulish communities became quite wealthy trading it with Mediterranean civilizations, but is it known if they ever discovered the recreational use of it?

I often hear it said that the average people under the Roman Empire did not speak proper Latin but rather Vulgar Latin, which dispersed throughout the empire and became the numerous Romance languages we have today. Sure, that's fine and good. But where did Latin come from?

Surely Latin did not start off as being a stuffy, bookish language. Who was speaking Latin while the nobility was using Greek? What were the soiled farmers, prostitutes, and wretches speaking? Were they going around saying "Roma invicta" at some point? How did this form of Latin come to take the high seat during the Classical era?

I understand this question is complicated but I just wanted some insights into the origins of Latin. It is my understanding that languages generally start with the common folk, but I can't seem to figure out who the common folk were that led to the language used in high texts.

For those historians here who work at colleges and universities, what types of questions did you get asked in job interviews?

Lately I've been reading a bit about how and why the Weimar Republic fell, and I'm looking for more insight into it than just skimming the Wiki pages. I have a pretty solid surface understanding of the economic and post-war causes; however, I'm more interested in the political landscape of Weimar before it's fall, how the other parties tried/failed to stop the fascist takeover of Germany, and how the NSDAP used political violence and rhetoric to take control. If you have recommendations for videos/books/documentaries I'd greatly appreciate it.

So as I understand it, the modern consensus is that the European Romani people originated in India, and traveled west to Europe some 1000 years ago. However, this notion seems to be pretty recent, as theories about their origin have been pretty diverse throughout the years. So where did the romani themselves think they come from? Does their mythology talk about a land of origin, like the Jews do with Israel? Or is that just not relevant in Romani culture?

California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming, all used to belong to what we know as “Mexico”. Did most mesoamerican tribes not migrate that far up north? Maybe strong ignorance on my behalf, but was curious if there was a more complex answer.

I’m not sure if this is the sub I should be posting in but I’ll give it a shot. The bible itself is in delicate condition with the cover completely there but practically falling apart. Right now it is just sitting wrapped in tissue paper in a Tupperware container with a lid on it on my desk. Can something like this be restored? Should it be? I just have no idea. If somebody could point me in the right direction of what I should do I would really appreciate it.

In Naqada III there were writing systems, serekhs, and rulers who have known names. Why is it considered Egyptian “prehistory” if we clearly have records of history from this period?

​

Before the fall of most of the European monarchies after 1919, there was obviously an array of different emperors, kings, princes, (grand) dukes ruling, or at least reigning, in Europe. Naturally all of these had different styles HIH, HI&RH, HRH, HH, HGDH, HSH etc etc

Was it always the case that people's styles were upgraded if they married into a higher precedence monarchy?

So for example, did a Serene Highness always become a Royal Highness? Did a Royal Highness always become an Imperial Highness? I know of cases where they were upgraded but was this always the case?

I know there are exceptions for morganatic marriages and those that did not have the permission of the Head of the House but leaving these exceptions aside were their any exceptions? If so, what were these?

Hello All,

I'm an aspiring author and I've been trying to do some research on European Witchcraft, specifically curses, and how it looked in the new world (circa 1750).

All I can find is articles about Supernatural and how realistic it is, but I can't corroborate any of that information. I know Voodoo and other similar religions have popped up in my research so I'm a little worried my plot may need a rewrite if I can't find something similar in European Paganism/Witchcraft.

Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

How many people would go to college and would that guarantee them a "good" job?

How competitive were university admissions- was there an equivalent of someone graduating from a mid-tier CS school and moving to San Fransisco and making a fortune.

How much more would a graduate earn than a generic laborer?

Hi there! I have a question that is probably more to do with opinion than anything. So I remember when I was younger learning about the convict period in Australia and violence against Indigenous people. Basically what I was taught (this was when I was in primary school though) was that violence against Indigenous people was largely committed by convicts and lower class people.

When I did a unit on the crusades in uni (I’m a history major) we learned about violence committed against Rhineland Jews by Crusaders. Again I was told that this violence was committed by lower class people and not the proper crusading army (I think these lower class crusader’s were referred to as the People’s Crusade or something)

Anyways, I’m not suggesting that violence wasn’t committed by these lower classes I just think that it’s a bit of a cop out if that makes sense? It seems as if people are placing the blame on these lower class, uneducated people and placing no blame on the higher ups. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like they’re trying to pretty up history by only blaming the “lesser” people.

Mostly I’m wondering to what extent is this the common belief? Or if it even is?

Hopefully the question and title make sense, I can be very bad at putting my thoughts into words.

The Wikipedia articles on the battles of this war are extremely short, undetailed, and generally assign huge numbers and huge casualties to the Haitians, and slight numbers and slight casualties to the Dominicans. The literature referenced appears generalist and non-helpful. So why did the Haitians perform so badly?