What really confuses me is how we actually know it is 2014? If we don't know much about certain periods of time, like in British history between the fall of the Roman empire and the end of the dark ages, how can we be sure we've added up the dates right? I suppose more generally i'm skeptical about how much we actually know about history, and how we can trust very old documents and how much is made up to fill in the gaps. I imagine a scenario where a King/Queens wants to be remembered in a certain way, so pure fiction is produced, which would be indistinguishable from fact. If they wanted to they could even extend their rule (only in the history books), say, by however many years they wanted and no one would know.

I've not really had a massive interest in History precisely because of this reason - and I know that's not good (and want to change that), but I don't know where to start looking to answer it. Whenever I watch a history programme on TV or read a history book, I'm always left thing, "yeah but how do you actually know that, you sound so certain!" I hope my question makes sense.

Whenever I read about any period in history, I try to place myself in the shoes of the various actors, (no matter how much I might disagree with them), and consider the alternatives they had in order to understand the choices they made. This process is useful to me to understand history.

The Holocaust is particularly problematic to me, however. Even accounting for paranoid conspiracy theories and the hatred the extreme right had for Jews at the time, it's difficult to understand why the Holocaust was decided on as a matter of priority. Resources would have had to be diverted to carry it out. Instead of focusing on the war, attention was focused on an issue that would not bring the war effort any immediate reward. Even if one were to imagine a people to be vermin, one would have to have good reason to deal with them as a priority. I can't seem to even find a self-interest angle to justify it, it seems entirely gratuitous.

Is there an analysis that can explain why the Third Reich decided to deal with this perceived problem as a priority in terms of rational self interest (albeit sociopathic self interest)? Most texts I've read delve into the history of antisemitism and Nazi paranoid mythology, but fall short in explaining why they would go to the great effort to organize this when they did. It doesn't seem to me to be a matter of urgency even if we were to accept their paranoia. Why not deal with the "problem" after more pressing issues were dealt with? And why step up the killings precisely as they were losing the war?

So basically, I have read on AskHistorians (if someone can dig out the original thread, I'd appreciate that) about a model for ancient infantry warfare.

Basically, both side fights for only a short time, then break off to rest, drag the wounded away, let the leader give speeches etc... until one side is organised enough to fight again, at which point they charge again, and fighting resumes. This cycle repeats itself until one side breaks and routs.

I feel this is very reasonable. I am currently learning a martial art, and can tell you that fighting is exhausting.

I have also recently read a paper by Adrian Goldsworthy, where he rejects the "othismos" model for hoplite warfare in favour of the "pulse" model. This got me interested in reading about how the "pulse" model is constructed from the information in the sources.

Also, it seems that this is all in the context of an infantry battle. Do we have any idea how cavalry vs cavalry action, for example, operates? How does ranged units fit into all this?

Thanks!

Dry topic I know but I'm fascinated. Let's take Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick for an example. Could he presumably be called by three different names? What would his close friends of equal or greater status call him? What about those of equal or greater status who he wasn't close to? And his "employee" (I use that term as a generalization, it could be a secretary or lieutenant or whatever) who he was friends with? An underling who he wasn't close to? Some random messenger bringing him a parcel? Sorry for drawing it out but I guess my question is, depending on rank and familiarity, what would you call a noble who could be called by so many different titles? Would setting matter, as in during a feast or a battle? I'm sure "my lord" and "m'lord" would be thrown around in there somewhere as well, but I'm sure by now you get the gist. Thanks for the help. Feel free to move beyond the question as needed.

Honest question. I'm really not trying to stir up conflict. I'm a daily lurker and I'm looking for serious academic answers.

A roommate and I were talking about the current situation between Gaza and Israel, and he stated that no Arab leader has ever recognized the state of Israel.

I found this hard to believe, that never in the last century has any Arab leader recognized Israel, and said as much. However, in looking into it online, it seems he is right.

From what I've read, no Arab leader has ever recognized the state of Israel.

So... what I want to know is, A) is my research true? Are there really no Arab leaders that have ever recognized Isreal, and B) If so, why?

Hello Historians! I have a real quick question. I'm currently working on a novel that mixes a little bit of historical fiction with fantasy. Mostly fantasy, which is what i'm good at, I'm actually not particularly good at Historical which is why there isn't much of it. But, what there is concerns a sheriff, and i'm hoping you fine folks can help me answer some questions.

First Question: The character I have currently listed as a sheriff in a town in the 1860s. What kind of gun would a sheriff from that time era carry?

Second Question: How likely is it that someone from that time period would know how to do something like make bullets? Was that common knowledge for that time period or relatively rare?

Third Question: I've read lots of places that the "Western" movie fashion sense of what sheriff's in the old west wore is pretty incorrect, but i have a lot of conflicting answers to what they actually wore when i look it up online. What would someone from that time period really wear?

Fourth Question: My research has also shown that the sheriff's stars that are so famous also tended to vary wildly, is there any chance someone could give me a better explanation as to why that is and what would be normal material/shape for a sheriff?

Thanks for the help in advance, it means a lot.

And why are there so many more nation states in Africa?

I really want to teach history or work in a museum

As the practice of home funerals went out of fashion, the parlour was slowly renamed the living room. I'm curious as to the specifics of that change too, but that's not my question.

I'm my question is: Where did they aim the couches? Before the advent of television (and radio?) as a living room centrepiece, how was the living room furniture arranged?

(Nearly) all of our living rooms point towards the television. I imagine our grandparent's pointed theirs towards their large cabinet tube radio. In the absence of TV and radio; what did our great-grandparents do? Any photos?

I have a script I'm writing and wanted to check my facts

In seeing the events of the last few years, there is clear partisan divide in the United States. In my memory, I don't recall an administration that dealt with this level of obstructionism. Almost every issue, big or small, is politicized as an attempt to save face.

Going back, has there ever been this kind of divide and "disrespect" for the president and government?

(I don't know if disrespect is the right word, but from what I know and experienced, no one elected to the high office of President has ever really been treated this low)

In The Making of Modern Japan, Jansen says that the arrival of foreigner's were the "explosives" for pre-existing tensions- what were those tensions?

I'm curious as to how the Britons interacted with the Anglo-Saxons during the Anglo-Saxon period.

• Did they retain their own culture?
• Did they manage to adopt the Saxon's/Jute's/Anglo's Germanic culture?
• How did the Jutes, Saxons and Angles view the native Britons?
• Did their quality of life decrease drastically? If so, how drastic was the change and how would it differ following the Norman Conquest?
• In regards to military service, were Britons allowed to serve alongside ethnic Anglo-Saxons - or were they barred from service?

Thanks

Edit: The title shoud probably read: "Is there any evidence of democracy in ancient civilizations before the Athenian city state of Ancient Greece?"

Sorry about that, mobile fucked it up.

Forgive the cheesy air-quotes; I just think that when talking about doctrine, the left-right divide can be misleading.

I'm familiar with the influence of Billy Graham, the Southern Strategy, ideas of opposing the "godless" Soviet Union - all of these ideas seem to be based on the growing "conservative" theology in the United States. But given how we've seen ideas like this as far back as Edwards in the U.S. (and probably farther than that), I'd like to hear whether or not the so-called conservative Christianity was also changed by the Cold War.

More to the point, what sort of primacy sources can be utilized for this? What's controversial? What beliefs or interpretations of available evidence shape the controversy?

I've heard this rumor, but is there anything actually substantiating it? Or does it just stem from his bachelorhood?

I mean I know that somebody knew that the earth was spherical, but how well spread was this knowledge?

How did world geography play a part in the formation of the Super-powers?

Super-powers being countries like USA and China.

Did geography affect the reasons why these countries became super powers and others didn't?