thanks, this is really important to me, sources would be appreciated :)

Did, for example, the Missisippian chiefdoms have any trade or communication with the civilizations further south? What about the Pueblos of the southwest?

Is there any universal way of agreeing that a region is part of a country, and not being occupied. I mean, Greece did not exist as a country prior to the Ottomans claiming the area; and the Ottomans owned it for c.400 years.

When I look at maps of North America prior to the 16th century they often depict areas which are controlled by certain tribes. These are often very large areas, sometimes larger than modern States. How much central control did the tribal leaders have over these areas? Was anyone allowed to live within these borders, or did the tribal leaders/councils control who was/was not allowed in? Also, was the concept of territorial control (static borders, control of resources, etc...) common among the people of these tribes?

I realize this question covers a very broad area but for the sake of this discussion I will define the geographical area of my question as stretching from the Northern border of modern day Mexico to the Southern borders of the Territories of Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). Everything between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. The time period I'm interested in is ~1000-1491 c.e.

Sorry if the question is far too open ended, but I'm curious to know if there were some unifying ideals or culture between the regions of the Hellenic world, especially around the time during and after Alexander the Great. Were they completely distinct and artificially put together through conquest, or was there a true, unified civilization that had common ideals and were more similar than distinct. (i.e. Athens vs. Alexandria vs Thebes vs Corinth etc.)

I read that because the amount of Christians with higher education so outnumbered Muslims it caused them to have a increased role in the economy, but I don't think the source specified why beyond saying Muslims had to spend more time studying Islamic Theology.

My step-dad is asking for a book that covers the last 200-300 years of Italian history. Specifically he commented "a book that explains and explores how all those autonomous region/nation states came together to form Italy as it is now." He is planning a trip there later this year and would like to get some background before going. Can anyone recommend some books or point me in the direction of where I can find recommendations? Thank you.

*Reading through the rules, my question seems to be in a gray area. I apologize if it is outside of the scope of the subreddit.

What kind of gadgets, tools and/or decor I could find in the average peasant?

So I'm completely fascinated by the Dutch East Indian Trading Company and want to read a really good, thorough book about it.

I used the search bar to look for suggestions but it seems different people recommend different books.

So far I've gotten: "Jonathan Israel's 1995 The Dutch Republic

Boxer's The Dutch Seaborne Empire (1965?) is a classic, but his Jan Compagnie in War and Peace (1979) is probably better.

Stephen Bown's Merchant Kings: When Companies Ruled the World, 1600-1900 (2012),

Israel's The Dutch Republic is still important, but it's a huge book and covers far more with a very European focus.

Parthesius's Dutch Ships in Tropical Waters (2014)? It's a more academic study of trade network development, but if you like that, it's something."

Assuming I can only buy one book, which one should I pick? If it helps, I'm not looking into anything specific about VOC, just a very good overview.

I am taking an introduction to U.S. History course right now and came across this question in my studies. Seeing as I couldn't find it online anywhere, I figured I'd ask reddit. So American Historians: why?

(Obviously neither existed in their current form 400 years ago)

What events were the turning points of the war in favor of the Allies?

And a bonus question: From what we know of the Romans, how would they have felt about us landing spacecrafts on Mars? Would they feel as though it's an attack on Mars, the god? Did they even know the planets had surfaces and could be inhabited/landed on? What contemporary evidence on their beliefs about the planets do we have?

Is it even possible for a dictatorship to be benevolent and still maintain control?

I have heard two largely opposing schools of thought regarding Hitler's rise to power. There seems to be those who claim he was a democratically elected leader, revered by the people and rising to power as a result of that. Others say that Hitler was able to rise to power in Germany largely due to acts of thuggery on the part of the Nazis - things like intimidating the supporters of other parties, and intimidating the leaders of the parties themselves, as well as intimidating average German citizens.

My question is: which of these two schools is more correct, and why? Historical sources for further research are strongly preferred.

On a related note, to what degree was the Reichstag fire used to create support for Hitler taking absolute control? That is, was it used as a political justification for Hitler to take advantage of existing support, or was support of the Nazis directly increased by it?

Did the Senate still have any influence by the time of the Severan dynasty? I'm working on a document about the Senate's acclamation of Alexander Severus after the assassination of his cousin Heliogabalus.

Could the Senate have feared the installation of an emperor by the legions at the time and, if so, did they still have any influence/power to counter a hypothetical coup by the military?

It's become very familiar among historians to cite that Mary burned two hundred and eighty people in only five years, but how did this compare with what Henry did as king? This doesn't have to include just people burned as heretics but also those classed as traitors as well.