Hello Historians, hopefully this will be an interesting and engaging topic for you to discuss!

In short, I read a few comments somewhere and the gist of it is this:

"Some puritans decided to leave their colonies to go live with the native Americans"

Other comments indicated that young puritan children who were kidnapped did not try to escape and return to their own people. This was chalked up to the natives having better quality of lives due to their millennia of experience on the land. Others equated it to the strict lifestyle of the puritans and the children enjoying the more "free spirited" life of the native population.

So my question is: is there any truth to these claims? Are there any primary sources I can read about this? I tried to Google it but I wasn't able to find anything that fit the question. So any answers, or even some concise topics to Google, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

It may sound like a silly question, but when I look at a map of Alexander’s conquests they almost all lie east of Macedon. Why did he pretty much only go in one direction and not bother with the rest of the Mediterranean or most of Europe?

The Old Testament has people living for hundreds of years. Is this a translation error, we’re years different then, or did people really live for hundreds of years.

Seems like an error a novice copy editor should have caught.

Was it developed in tandem with the United States' westward expansion, or was it the product of late 19th/early 20th century reminiscing, or an invention of mid-20th century Hollywood? Was it conjured by something else entirely?

Hello Ask Historians. I'm a huge fan of history but a massive blindspot in my knowledge has been on the subject of Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. I recently read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer and while I am more well versed on that period of time in history I found the thoroughness and depth of the book to be absolutely superb. The entire read was fascinating and I'm hoping to see if there is a book that is of the same quality only with a focus on Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars.

For someone who knows next to nothing about Napoleon and these wars what would you say is the most robust book on this subject that you can go into without knowing much about the conflict or the man?

If I see a post that I think is an interesting question I'll see that it says there are more than one comments, but when I click into it there is only the one that gets sent automatically. This happens a lot repeatedly, it isn't all of them maybe it is more recent posts? I don't know what's going on, but it seems like I should be able to see people's replies...

I dont know much about leif eriksons vayage, just that he was nordic and reached modern day canada around the year 1000. if so, why didnt anything happen with Europeans in the Americas for another 500 years? was the news ever reported back to europe?

Hello,

I am currently writing a senior honors thesis in art history. I am examining Pre-Columbian portraiture and was wondering if anyone could point me towards a good article that covers, what is portraiture? how do we define it? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The Bell Beaker people, Celts, Anglo Saxons, Vikings, Normans - Are there any reasons behind the countless invasions of Britain and why was it so appealing to these different groups of people?

To elaborate here, what makes me curious is I’ve seen photos and videos of large collections of old documents, usually in a European setting, i.e. a medieval monastery, and I wondered if historians have studied every last one or if there is a chance that new discoveries are waiting “right under our noses” so to speak.

I've seen this theory proposed as an explanation to why literacy wasn't more widespread in pre-Roman Celtic lands despite the adaption of some writing systems. The druids were supposedly concerned that the proliferation of literacy would threaten their status in society.

The German Empire was essentially a federation of several different states, most of which were, themselves, monarchies. That is, except for the three Free and Hanseatic cities in the north, Bremen, Hamburg, and Lübeck. They had been Republics and remained so in the Empire, so how did they coexist with and within the monarchies? Did the constution grant them any special privileges that exempt them from the influence of the Emperor? In what ways did they differ from the other states in interacting with the central government?

I know that each wave was launched from the North of Oahu, but how far from the Hawaiian islands were the Japanese aircraft carriers? 100s of miles? 10s of miles?

Before formula, what did moms do if they did not have enough milk on their own or a wet nurse? Could they pull milk from various other animals? I am inquiring about moms anywhere in the world during history.

I maybe have it wrong but I was reading about her life (went down a rabbit hole) and there is no mention about her being in any relation to the LGBT community, but she's apparently seen as a gay icon (despite her husband having a gay affair and not her). All I saw are a few comments she made in favour of gay rights and void theories that mention movies she starred in as holders of gay allusions. The number of references I keep seeing in mainstream media is quite big.

As a non-US born person and before anything about her, with only references, I thought she would've been similar to a gay rights activist or a gay celebrity but she's not so I'm confused. Thanks in advance!

like for example, the british colonialism of egypt, did britain just steal resources and Egyptians had to work for them? or did Britain give them something in return? were egyptians allowed to move to other areas in the british empire? were they allowed to move to Britain? were the laws changed by Britain? did the currency change? did Britain try to improve the quality of life in egypt?

So, Midway has been heralded as this text book case of military victory and many points out this is due to the loss of the six fleet carriers. Fast forward to the Battle of the Philippine sea and the IJN still had a formidable surface fleet and even had carriers that baited Halsey's TF into leaving the landing fleet.

Carriers are carriers right? Wouldn't it have been more sound strategy to have the surface fleet protect the remaining carriers and have the remaining carriers do "Midway Part II"? I'm quite confused as the IJN still had good carriers after Midway like the HIJMS Shinano yet Midway was the nail in the coffin.