For example, a recent answer on this sub states that "central European nobles will interpret the story of the curse to tarnish their own serfs and justify their lack of freedom." Why "will" instead of "would," when this happened hundreds of years ago and is not ongoing? What's the purpose this writing style and where did it originate? Shouldn't historians be more careful about conflating past and present in their work?

The title pretty much sums it.What did also Antony think?Or Octavian?In Ancient Rome incest was viewed morally wrong, but both Caesar and Antony still had Cleopatra(who was a product of incest) as a lover.

Or was retrofitting older buildings with new amenities like indoor plumbing/central heating/electricity often too expensive to be worthwhile?

Most of the focus on urban development at this time is about new forms of transit allowing cities to grow during a period of rapid urbanization, but there tends to be less focus at the micro level as to why someone would redevelop a specific plot of land.

Edit: for clarification I mean late 1800's early 1900's

Does this exist online?
I would for instance love to have a look on the stuff the people in the 16th century would read... And not only the famous stuff... :-)

Were the terms “World War 1” and “World War 2” applied by later generations? Would veterans of either/both conflicts eventually refer to them as such? Instead of “The Great War” for example?

Last night it came to our attention that an ad with the title, "Use r/AskHistorians? Win $100 for taking our 5 minute survey on how to improve the subreddit" was being promoted in our community. We want to clarify that we are not affiliated with the survey.

While we have confirmed with the researchers that the survey is part of research study and does not appear to be a scam or phishing attempt, and that it received ethics approval from its institution’s IRB, we have requested they remove our community from the study immediately as we have several concerns.

1. First, is that while asking for usernames and email addresses is standard operating procedure when offering incentives, there is no indication that the username it asks you to provide will be stored separately from your responses. There is no indication of who is anticipated to access the data. This is a security risk and thus not standard operating procedure in survey research.

2. Second, there is no indication in the informed consent form that states that you can withdraw consent, or how you would be able to do so. This is also not standard operating procedure in research involving humans.

3. Third, while the goals stated to us by the researchers when we reached out to them sound interesting and valuable to the reddit community as a whole, we believe the wording of the title, which suggests that results will help improve r/AskHistorians specifically and directly, is misleading. It is not clear to us how the results will improve our community, or indeed, even make their way back to us when the study is complete.

We are highly supportive of research on r/AskHistorians. We are regularly contacted with research requests and often agree to participate after we’ve discussed the project with the researchers and have confirmed IRB approval. Researchers interested in working with us should contact us first, so that we can ensure that research goals align with our interests, those of our community, and that our community will be safe from harm. Not only did that not happen here, but because the survey was posted as an ad we couldn’t remove it until we could confirm that it was indeed an academic survey and not a scam.

We aren’t sure if the ad is still running. If it is, we’d like to be clear that this is not a study the r/AskHistorians mod team has approved or endorsed.

What was the position of Nova Scotia during the American War of Independence? Was it ever anticipated that they would form part of the United States? If not, why not?

Why did the US not try to invade NS like they invaded Quebec?

The ancient Assyrians spoke the Assyrian language, which came from Akkadian. Modern Assyrians speak Suret, which comes from Aramaic. How and why did this switch happen? What caused them to start speaking another language while maintaining their identity?

Did contemporaries believe that the atom bomb was “the weapon the would win the war?” Or is this just revisionist history? How common would it have been for “war winning” weapons to be in development? Did just as many people believe the B29, fire bomb clusters or other tech tech would “win the war?”

Note, I understand there is debate about how much of a role the atom bomb played in the Japanese surrender. I am curious if people were convinced that it would bring about an end to the war prior to its combat use and if this belief was unique to the nuke.

Were there candidates for the Spanish throne in 1868 after the overthrow of Isabella II other than Leopold Hohenzollern and Amedeo Savoy?

I was debating with someone about the civil war and the primary causes, and they said this, "the animosity between the north and south goes back all the way to the English civil war where Massachusetts sent troops to help Cromwell while Virginia remained loyal to the King and Maryland was divided and saw the only battle of that war in North America". Admittedly, I don't know much about this time period, but I don't see how this would have much, if any, affect on the American Civil War.

Let us take as a hypothesis the case of a pater familias of the late republic/prince belonging to the equestrian class. This person has some very successful business, perhaps large agricultural estates, mines, or a profitable slave trade. The children have good careers, perhaps in the army, at the bar or the cursus honorum. What kind of lifestyle would this person have? How big would his house in Rome be? Would he have clients or his own? What luxuries would he be able to afford compared to the plebeian, and which would be precluded to him because he is not a patrician? Finally, in the case of the principality, could this person have contacts with the imperial family, or was the dynasty of Augustus only accessible to patricians and high ranks in the army?

This is a weirdly specific one. But where were the largest concentrations of factories, for war material specifically, in Britain? I’m presuming a lot of the industry was in London proper, it holding such a large portion of the population and being so industrialized, but can I get percentages? A rundown of what was where?

Aside from espionage, which is a given, did the CIA have leaders working on the inside from the USSR to sabotage and lead to its downfall?

In the U.S., we're taught in our history classes that the USSR fell apart because it had run out of money, the economy was in tatters, and the people wanted more economic and personal freedom. Recently I was speaking with my wife and her family from Russia who lived through the downfall of the USSR and they described the American version of the story as "propaganda". Apparently, life was pretty good in the Soviet Union during the late 80's and 90's, there were shortages here and there but nothing like what was portrayed in American media. They were taught in school that the U.S. through the CIA and Gorbachev (who my wife and her family despise) worked to intentionally break apart the USSR and blame it on the failure of the Marxist-Leninist way of life.

So my question is, how much influence did the CIA have in this regard to break apart the USSR, and why did the U.S. portray the way of life in the Soviet Union during this time period as being so poor? I'm inclined to believe my wife's family since they lived through it, but it's completely opposite to everything I've heard in the U.S., so I'm wondering why there is such a discrepancy between the Russian and American sides of the story.

Sorry if the question is too generic. I'm a 19 year old college student, and ever since high school, I've been more into the science side and I never took any history classes, and was never interested in reading up about basic world history. As a result, I now have a hard time understanding and participating in conversations where historical events are brought up. I'm lost when people talk about the French Revolution, the Civil War or even WW2, whether it's online or real life. I try reading about said events online, but this makes me piece together snippets of information, which isn't a comprehensive study of the topic at all.

I would love any resources - books, online courses, youtube channels, etc that would give me an extensive idea of important/significant events in our history. I love studying, so I wouldn't mind taking notes and doing a large amount of reading, my semester is ending so I have a lot of free time. I'm hoping to eventually study certain aspects of what I learn in detail, but for now I'm looking for something that covers as much time/area as possible from over the years.

Any advice would be appreciated :)

My grandfather was in the U.S. Army and was stationed in Berlin after right after the fall in WWII. He brought home several spoils of war and one was left to me. It's a nazi red cross sawback dagger. I was always a WWII buff because of my grandpa and dad loved war movies. I grew up playing Medal of Honor and Call of duty so I knew what the Nazis were. My interest in WWII led me to major in history in college and to go back for a masters as well. I really want to get rid of this thing, and I'm trying to figure out the best place to reach out to find out what to do with it.

For most of the 1800's France had an almost unbroken string of victories in conflicts, large and small, around the globe. Yet, when the Franco-Prussian war broke out, they were defeated relatively quickly. After the capture of Napoleon III, the Third Republic was formed just so the Prussians had someone they could negotiate the French surrender with. My old history professor laid the claim that it was the difference between the Prussian general staff (modern style) vs the French one (messenger style) that was the reason for the Prussian victory.
More specifically, the Prussians had plans laid, and supplies ready, for an invasion of France before the war broke out. Wouldn't the French also have such plans?
The French had a large number of experienced officers and men with a huge history of victories behind them.
The Prussians by comparison had fought only a handful of wars in the last 50 years.
This is the era of the "Napoleonic tactics", but was there a difference in the tactics or weapons used by the two armies that contributed to the one-sided nature of the war?
To be clear, my old professor was only pointing out the Franco-Prussian war as one of the events that led to WWI, and why the region of Alsace-Lorraine was so important. He did not give very many details, but what led to the French defeat has always puzzled me.

Hi everyone, just wanted to pop by around here to ask whether any of you good recommend me some good titles (in English) revolving around the Anni di Piombo or Years of Lead which plagued Italy between the late 1960's and the early 1980's. Any and all help would be much appreciated! Please do feel free to DM me with recommendations in case the comment section doesn't work.