I see a lot of hateful things about Columbus. And I too believed he was an evil man but I saw a video on TikTok that made me into him more online and found some websites that say the opposite So, my question is...

What was Columbus like? Did he really do those things? What is true and what’s a lie about him/ the things he did

(repost)

The dialogue goes something like:

Cornwallis: "As the initiating officer, would you like to begin?"
Martin: "I would, unless you would like to claim aggrieved status?"
Cornwallis: "I would like to claim aggrieved status."
Martin: "Very well, state your grievances."

And so on. Was this a thing? If so, how common was it, and how would officers learn the ropes?

As further follow-up, would he have had any shot whatsoever of a statewide campaign or was San Fransisco the only place he would have been a viable candidate?

Outside of injuries, ailments or other maladies that would leave one sight-impaired to some degree, when did people become aware that eyesight didn't have a "universal" quality?

Would a medieval peasant with myopia assume that everyone saw a blurry world, just like them? Would scouts on the Great Wall be assigned to posts based on their comparatively keen eyesight?

The account of Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub (a Jewish merchant from Tortosa), describes a visit to Northern Europe in 965, including the city of Schleswig.

In the account he asserts ' The inhabitants worship Sirius, except for a small number of Christians'. He also refers to inhabitants making offerings 'to the gods'.

This surprised me, as my guess was that this part of Northern Germany/Danish border would have been Christianised at the end of Charlemagne's Saxon Wars in the early 800s.

Why was the city pagan so late on? What kind of deity was Sirius? The name doesn't fit with the Saxon/Germanic patheon that we know. Is it the star Sirius?

What do historians make of this?

More specifically, I was thinking about how Germany launched a two-front offensive during WW1 and WW2, and like is the generalization, Germany lost. Why was the US special in that it could fight on two fronts and win them both? Was it simply superior manufacturing, it's position an ocean away, or something else?

When did North Americans loose the ability to trial by combat and/or duel pistols? (I know these things are different but they are slightly related)

It is my understanding that two consenting adults are forbidden to fight to the death even if a signed contract is involved and witness are there to over see the entire ordeal. Not once in my life have I heard of this occurring, Was it every truly legal or did it only happen in small towns where the local Sheriff didn't care?

Did North Americans ever legally duel with pistols or is this mostly Hollywood nonsense? If they did duel how were these things handled? Was there an official method for challenging someone or did two men quite simply agree to stand 15ft apart and shoot each other on the count of 3?

I'm not sure if the death masks of famous French Revolution victims such as Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Marat, or Robespierre would still be intact and on display somewhere today, but surely there is a credible database of photos of them somewhere? I'm looking to include photos of some of the original casting work of Marie Tussaud for a presentation. When searching online, there are hundreds of different photos that come up for each historical figure, and I'm not sure where to find a legitimate, original one.

Always wondered if guys like Thierry and other medieval soldiers suffered from things like PTSD after seeing so much war. Was it more common back then for men to be mentally equipped for death/war? It's hard finding information about medieval war that isn't just on the few battles and crusades, so it's difficult to find accounts of individual soldiers mental state.

And, if he is a real person, what evidence (or lack there of) is there to any of the myths in the Bible?

I know Liberia remained independent due to its links to the USA but why did Ethiopia not get grabbed up immediately by European powers?

PS I'm a history teacher looking for new topics to teach and considering Ethiopia as a course so any suggested periods to study or research would also be appreciated.

Was it considered a "necessary evil" or looked down up, given the ancient Greeks' cultural chauvinism? Wouldn't it have been helpful for a Greek leader or academic to know the language of Greece's powerful neighbors or, after Alexander, for a Greek ruler to at least sort of understand their Egyptian/Iranian/Bactrian/etc. subjects' languages?

I'm mostly curious about the early 5th century to 2nd century BCE (broadly, the Greco-Persian Wars to the Achaean War, with maybe special emphasis towards the time of Xenophon, because he's the reason I'm asking this question) but I certainly wouldn't mind commentary from before or after that period if any exists.

Thanks!

During China's Sui Dynasty, Japan's ruler claimed the imperial title for himself, in order to assert their peerage with China. This violated China's Sinocentric cosmology, in which Japan was formerly regarded as an inferior "dwarf". The Sui Emperor was incensed, but the distance between China and Japan meant he couldn't counter it. Japan was thence ruled by their own emperor.

Vietnam also had an imperial title until the early 20th century. How did medieval China react to Vietnam's claim to the imperial title?

In these stories, the King often is not pleased that a commoner won the right to the Princess, and would often add extra hurdles. But in the end, the commoner does marry the Princess and does inherit the kingdom. So:

1. Was this sort of offer ever made?
2. If so, did anyone ever actually marry a Princess by completing the quest?

I have been doing some amateur research on the Mexican American war of 1846 and the Spanish American war of 1898 and throughout my research I have come across the mention of the federal army and volunteer units/state units. Could someone explain the differences in equipping these units and their commands and recruiting from the time period of 1846 to 1898 as well as explain how the state/volunteer units were called up for action as opposed to the federal units?

What I'm getting at is, on a basic level, do these terms refer to the same people? As someone with a basic Western exposure to stories in the king james bible, it seems like "the Philistines" are meant to be understood as villains -- AKA enemies of Israel. I'm curious to know if a historian would think there's a connective thread between that ancient portrayal of Philistines as enemies, and the modern day situation with Israel and Palestine where the globally dominant opinion seems to view Israel as the victim and Palestine as aggressor.

Really appreciate any thoughts!

In high school (about a decade ago) I thought I learned that the German soldiers preferred not to directly interact with the concentration and execution camps because it was psychologically taxing, so instead they passed those duties off to some of their allies of different nationalities. Is there any validity to this? I cannot seem to find a source that repeats this claim.

What is the best way to find an objective view of a particular historical event? In fact, what does an objective view even mean in history? While different sides of a conflict may have their own reasons to take action in any negative way against the other, a lot(most?) of the times we do lump some sides as "bad" and some as "good" or "both".

I am struggling with trying to understand if objectivity in terms of history means that you're looking at one event from all perspectives and recounting what each side did without taking a side?

Or does it mean you look at all point-of-views so you'll know who is right or wrong from a very basic moral perspective?

Does reading books from different perspectives of the same event have a better impact on your understanding than talking to several Historians?

I guess my overarching question is that, if you listen to one story from different sides and pick a side that you feel is right, or affected the most, then does that make you biased? Or are you.. objectively right?

I think I've been thinking about this too much and my mind is really muddled.

Declaring a dead pope a saint and declaring a dead emperor a god seem pretty similar. The ideas that a deceased person is worthy of a public cult and can intercede on behalf of those who pray to them also seem very pagan to me. Is this practice a continuation of pagan deification and worship?

Asia was originally the name of a Roman province corresponding roughly to present day western Turkey. Why is it that "Asia" came to be the name of the entire massive continent, spanning thousands of miles and cultures well beyond the reach of ancient Rome or Greece? What did other cultures, like ancient China?