Hi guys!

I’ve just quit my soul destroying retail job, and I really want to try and make history my career. I have an undergrad arts degree with a history major, and I’m totally open to doing a masters or PhD. But I’m realizing more and more than I don’t really have a firm grip on what it is historians actually do, and how they make a living.

What different full-time, salaried roles are there? What do you do all day in those roles, and how did you land them?

Is there such a thing as a freelance historian? If so, how do you pay the bills?

I have been taking a course on Ancient Greek mythology and was wondering why a religion like Christianity worships a single deity, whereas the Ancient Greeks worshiped many. Was there a cultural significance to these choices, and what made polytheism seem to fade out?

I was taught in school (in the US) that most Americans did NOT know about the holocaust or the genocide of the Jews even though there were photographic evidence and testimony of escaped inmates circulating in at least 1941. I have to assume that once these rumors came out the Germans—who were no strangers to shouting "fake news" themselves, would have pushed a disinformation campaign... but I don't know. To draw a contemporary parallel—what is happening with the Uyghurs in China—might something like that have happened in the 1940s?

For example the Browning Automatic Rifle had less ammunition then a M1A1 Grease gun but was still considered a Light Machine gun, same with the Japanese Type 11 and Type 96 which had 30 rounds, a bit more than the BAR's 20 but still was on the same level as SMG's.

[EDIT] Forgot to mention the Bren, and Chauchat as well.

Hello

I recently watch the death of Stalin on Netflix. I became intrigued by Zhukov and his actions during the transition period after Stalin’s death. My question is why did Zhukov fall out of favor during the Brezhnev years? Thank you in advance.

To my admittedly amateur eyes, it seems like Napoleon's strategy at Waterloo was to split the Prussians and English so he could defeat each in turn (rather than allow them to combine, outnumber, and overwhelm him as they did). The turning point to me seems to hinge on Grouchy's inability to drive off the Prussians, which ultimately allowed Blucher and his forces to engage Napoleon's right flank that afternoon, sealing the French general's fate.

My question: was Napoleon justified in taking this risk based on the intel that he had? I don't mean to turn this into a history-what-if discussion, but based on what Napoleon knew at the time, was his gamble that Grouchy could keep the Prussians out of the fight a reasonable one, or was this a desperate/hubris-inspired mistake with little to back up its assumption(s)? Or is this question coming from a faulty place in that Napoleon would have lost regardless of the Prussian presence on the field?

Just been wondering lately.

I've heard he was a sword-bearer for Nobunaga but not given the official title of samurai.

I'm doing some research into SDI and I'm not too sure if it was ever planned to be used or if it was more sort of fearmongering on the US' behalf. Was it just a mad claim by Reagan to try and flex showing the US could achieve anything? Or was it actually considered a viable option as a nuclear deterrent? Any info relating to SDI would be greatly appreciated

I am asking whether if Prussia ever establish important colonies outside of Europe before unification of Germany in 1871?

I was recently reading the Trial of Eichmann wiki entry and I saw that it is claimed that a dozen Holocaust survivors sought to testify for the defense. A citation was made to “Bitter Reckoning: Israel Tries Holocaust Survivors as Nazi Collaborators”. Does anyone know more about this or just any general resources for Holocaust survivors making defenses or excuses for Nazis?

I was scrolling through the wikipedia page of the naval battle of the war of 1812, and it appears that at several occasions, the american Navy had the upper hands aigainst the royal navy, notable exemple the capture of HMS cyane and HMS Levant (of whom one was re-capture) who were 6th rate ship.

It's baffling to see that the newly created american navy was able to compete with the almighty Royal navy, keep in mind that the early 1800 was the height of the power for both Britain and the Royal navy, moreover both the French, Spannish and Dutch were in now way able to contest the British dominance over the sea so the "the Royal navy were too busy with the Europeans" idea doesnt work as Napoleon abandonned his dream of having a superior Navy.

​

So let's jump to the conclusion, why the (newly created) American navy was able to gain the upper hand with the British?

Also is this phenomenon seen in other countries?

So I’ve been wondering about the reaction of the north and it’s citizens to the surrender of Fort Sumter , were the men heckled for giving up the fort and first battle of the civil war to the rebels in the south ? What happened to the man who led the forts garrison? Did he fight again ?

Did they? And what were Hitlers main errors and what actions /non-actions could have lead to a different outcome of the war. (At least in Europe.)

Are the letters sent by Muhammad to Heraclius and vice versa considered genuine?

What were the elites eating in this highly stratified society, with wide ranging access to produce? I'm guessing that peasants ate simple things like maize and beans, but were there any accounts of special dishes served, e.g., to the Spanish while they stayed in Tenochtitlan?

Also, how much of Aztec food would be recognizable to someone familiar with Mexican food today? When did signature dishes develop, like tacos, enchiladas, tamales, etc? I'm guessing a big innovation would have been the introduction of cheese?

I was talking and I figured out that clowns share similarities with african stereotypes of having an afro, big red lips, and a big nose. Are clowns meant to mock these negative stereotypes?