Hello, I have recently become aware that there is very little archaeological evidence for there being an Anglo Saxon invasion of Britain.

I used to think that the Anglo Saxons were invited over as mercenaries by the Romano British to replace the Roman military after the Empire withdrew, and then mutinied and took over, but cannot actually find much to support this and wonder where the theory came from.

Does anyone know a convincing theory as to how the Anglo Saxons managed to seeming completely replace the Brythonic people of what is now England?

From what I've seen, Iran was NOT a country where conditions were of the kind that traditionally trigger revolutions. The country was reasonably wealthy and the quality of life was improving. The Shah was a good ruler. The country was at peace. Then what caused the revolution?

I live in a European country that stayed neutral during WW1 and i have come to realise that my Education has painted the germans and austrians in somewhat of a unfair light. I was wondering if there is any «good» and «bad» side bias in countries like Germany and France that was a major part of the war?

The Zhuge crossbow has existed since the 4th Century BCE, and while not as strong as other crossbows, a weapon that can fire 10 bolts in 20 seconds seems useful, why didn't other civilizations try to create one?

When you're reading the page, it has everyone from allies to Iran showing support, and then this is how the section ends:

"In September 2001, shortly after the attacks, Greek soccer fans burned an Israeli flag and unsuccessfully tried to burn an American flag. Though the American flag did not catch fire, the fans booed during a moment of silence for victims of the attacks."

What's the story here? Or is there a story here?

1,000+ dead from a single lucky bomb...

I’ve heard rumors that these pilots were likely shot down in the weeks following the Pearl Harbor attack, but no definitive answers.

I want to become a history teacher but I worry I don't know enough yet to be as great as those who inspired me. I'm in my 2nd year of college finishing my associates in arts before I transfer to UNCW to get my bachelor's in history with a teachers license.

I want to boost my confidence in my knowledge of history so I can be the best darn educator for my students that I can be. For US History what is a good starting point?

Of course the answer is going to be "it depends" but what I'm asking is a bit more specific than that.

In general, modern academic historians seem to focus a lot on social history these days. So if you have an academic historian writing about baseball you're going to get a lot of analysis of the role that baseball has played in society and not much about how the game was played, developments in coaching and training, etc.

That's all well and good but how often does this focus on social history extend so far that you get historians writing about a subject they know nothing about? The reason I'm asking this is that there's only one technical subject that I know a lot about: brewing. I love homebrewing and I've read a lot about historical brewing techniques in different parts of the world.

So when I listened to some history podcasts and the podcasters had interviews with academic historians who had written a lot about historical brewing I was very excited to listen to them. And then I was completely gobsmacked. One of the historians had done archeological work on beer pots and was able to look at the residue and trace where and when and where people used malted vs. unmalted grain which was great and very informative. The other two did economic analysis by measuring beer jars and social history by looking at the records of brewers guilds. The economic and social analysis seemed mostly solid but it was obvious that they had very little knowledge about brewing. For example getting basic information about the impact of hops completely backwards or wildly exaggerating how long it takes for fermentation to produce an appreciable amount of alcohol. Not small errors and ones that would've been easy to correct with even a minor amount of study of the brewing process. And no, this isn't the sort of error that could be chalked up to changes in the brewing process over the centuries. And then they based some of their conclusions on their misconceptions of the basics of brewing. And the beer wasn't a side issue either, one of these historians had written an entire book about historical brewing.

This made me worried since I know very little about historical ceramics production, agricultural techniques, metallurgy, construction, etc. etc. so if I read something about one of those subjects by an academic historian who doesn't understand the technical dimensions of those subjects then I have no way of being able to tell if they're feeding me errors or not.

So, when historians talk about the specifics of how people did stuff in the past how must salt should I take that with? Are there lots of historians out there writing about agriculture without knowing the difference between wheat and barley? Is it common for historians to write a lot about the social impact of things that they know nothing about or it just an anomaly that I've run across a couple historians who write about the only technical subject I'm proficient in that are making obvious errors?

Meaning, what were Japan's aims if it had been "successful".

I ask this assuming there was some military objective and it was not just intended as a one-time sneak attack intended to "scare" the US and hope they would not retaliate in a major way....unless the answer is that simple.

Census data was taken in northern Indiana, as well as New York if that matters. There is also a single other document, not fully verified, stating they were from Slovakia.

​

Any info is much appreciated.

From what I’ve read, many of Germany’s citizens backed the Nazi party before and during the war. Even if they weren’t part of the party, they seemed to agree with at least some of what the Nazis were trying to accomplish. Much of Germany’s younger population had grown up hearing Nazi rhetoric.

How did these people react to the fall of the Nazi party? Did they realize that what the Nazis were doing was wrong? Were they relieved Germany had lost the war? Or did many continue to believe Germany should have won the war?

I know this is kind of a complicated question as it’s hard to speak to every German citizen. I’m just looking for generalities.

It is my understanding that NZ was settled as a colony along the same time as New South Wales and as a result , many of the settlers/convicts would feel inherently British with a shared national identity. What events happened between 1788 and 1901 happen for New zealanders to choose not to opt in a federationand form their own national identity? Furthermore, if NZ always had an option to opt in after 1901, were there any significant movements to rejoin Australia? And if so, Why did they fail?

I realize that there is more to it than that and the divisions in countries like Germany, Korea, and Vietnam had layers upon layers of complexity in them. BUT, was there ever a meeting between Americans and Soviets that essentially carved up the map like the Berlin Conference or the Sykes Picot agreement, where foreign occupiers of a land essentially started drawing lines on a map and agreed who controlled which part? Or did the divisions arise more from "That's just where each side's troops happened to be, and they formed their governments there"?

I guess the core of my question is, following all of the events and circumstances leading back hundreds of years, how was the final decision of which country would be communist and which country would be capitalist made? And what was the local reaction to such decisions?

I just finished whatching "master and commander" and that question arose, with some protection, many of the injuries qould not habe ocurred.

To preface this post, I saw a friend’s Snapchat of himself and some others out in the woods shooting targets with various firearms. One of his friends was clearly left handed and was struggling with shooting and cycling what looked like a Mosin Nagant. It got me thinking, were there enough left handed soldiers to have made countries have some of their issued rifles changed to accommodate them? Or where they just left to figure it out? Or were they just put into other duties? I was mostly thinking of the period where bolt action rifles were the main weapon for front line soldiers. But any interesting info is welcome! Thanks for your answers!

I have been told there are competing theories and no one really knows. But I’m coming here to see if anyone of you all has more information or wants to offer a guess. Thank you!

It’s interesting that we have little to no primary source evidence regarding Jesus and his ministry. We have the New Testament gospels but those are more like stories told from a third person perspective and we’re not written until after Jesus died.

On the other hand, if we look at other religious figures, we have plenty of primary source evidence on the prophet Muhammad who ran a country not just a church or the Buddha aka Siddhartha Gautama.

Jesus is arguably one of the most important figures in history since many historical events that occurred were inspired by him like the conversion of Constantine, the crusades, the Anno Domini system, the way we measure dates is also based on his birth and death.

Yet you’d think someone so important would have primary source evidence discussing how amazing he really was.

The first New Testament writings were generally accepted to be the Pauline epistles which were written around 50AD. About 20 years after Jesus supposedly died but Paul includes little biographical information about Jesus and says that he did not know Jesus personally yet he did know James the brother of Jesus.

The gospels give information about Jesus’s birth and death but leave out most of his life during his teenage years and young adult years.