As the title says, I'm looking for books that will deepen my understanding of the material I'm teaching. I'm not looking for the most intense, academic works out there, but something accessible that I could possibly weave into my lessons. Ideally, I'd love book recommendations for each unit of the curriculum:

• Unit 1: Period 1: 1491–1607
• Unit 2: Period 2: 1607–1754
• Unit 3: Period 3: 1754–1800
• Unit 4: Period 4: 1800–1848
• Unit 5: Period 5: 1844–1877
• Unit 6: Period 6: 1865–1898
• Unit 7: Period 7: 1890–1945
• Unit 8: Period 8: 1945–1980
• Unit 9: Period 9: 1980–Present

I'd also be interested in topics that either challenge the AP narrative/content or highlight stories that are often left out of the curriculum that would be interesting to include alongside it.

According to Wikipedia, which is backed up by a text source that I do not have access to, after the death of Italo Balbo a British bomber dropped a wreath on top of the runway where he was shot down by friendly fire. Why would the British do this to a country they were at war with, offering condolences to a fascist, while risking people to do that!

I recently watched an episode of "Who Do You Think You Are?" on Discovery+. It followed the story of actress Zooey Deschanel's Quaker ancestors in Pennsylvania who were heavily involved in Abolition. I wanted to learn more about this subject and wanted to know if there was a specific event that prompted their involvement or was it based purely on the beliefs of their faith?

I am under no misconceptions, I know the Sherman was a very effective tank. I am just wondering where the bad reputation came from. Was it from the war veterans, or when people decided to compare the Sherman and the Tiger? I would like to know.

I am currently watching The Last Kingdom on Netflix and the wife of a King doesn't seem to be referred to as a Queen in the show. For anyone who doesn't know the show, it's a Viking tv-series set between 866– 912.

Understandably the historical accuracy in TV shows can sometimes get skewed, but it got me wondering so I did some reading and it appears that the wife of a King was never considered a Queen upon marriage. It wasn't until Aelfthryth, the wife of King Edgar, was anointed that Queen consorts became a thing.

From my understanding, a Queen consort is a courtesy title bestowed upon the wife of a King. She holds no power over her husbands realm and merely adopts the feminine style of her husbands rank and title. However prior to Aelfthryth becoming Queen Consort - what were the wives of King's considered? Were they noble ladies, princesses, or just a wife? Were they considered royalty even if they weren't Queen's?

It also makes me wonder where the phrase "Your Majesty" came from when addressing a King or Queen. In the show, when they address the King they say things like "Yes, Lord" or "Of course, Lord."

Writing a book and would love to have reliable sources.

Does anyone know any sources when it comes to the spiritual beliefs, weapons/armors, and magical beliefs of the cultures/people listed below. Just drop a link. Let me know if there is a better way for me to phrase this. You don't have to answer all of them just reply with any information you have would be helpful.

Indigenous people of the Americas (Aztec, Mayan, Incan, and Inuit)

Celtic & Scandinavian

Japan & China (roughly 1600 & earlier)

The people of modern day Zululand (preferably 1600ish & earlier)

The entire Middle East (1600 & earlier/Islam can be included)

Spain (medieval)

I have someone telling me that they all already knew about the New World being there, and rather just used it as a cover up, but I can’t find anything confirming nor denying this when googling. I can’t fathom why they would lie about this when enslavement was kinda the norm back then, but I still want to make sure about all this.

(I copied and pasted from my post on r/IsItBullshit due to many people recommending I ask here for better answers, sorry if it’s not as clear as it should be)

Edit: I used India as a general term, sorry. I don’t mean the specific country, but more East Indies I guess

Hi there.

I'm wondering if or how chain mail would be worked into other pieces of clothing. For example would there be cases where mail might be worn beneath or woven into the inside of a gambeson, maybe with a thin layer of leather between the mail and the skin?

I'm writing some fiction that I want to keep grounded in at least something resembling actual historical practice. There is a character who travels some dangerous merchant roads but wants to appear relatively nonthreatening/unprotected. As such, I thought a coat of some sort resembling a thin, gambeson with mail woven into it to conceal the level of protection it provides might be in order. But I wanted to ensure that wasn't TOO fantastical. (I realize he wouldn't be able to conceal the mail protection entirely but I figured it was at least partially plausible.)

Thanks for your input.

Much has been made of 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy depicting the first pregnancy storyline in American television. However, CBS censors deemed the word "pregnancy" to be too obscene for American audiences even in the context of married characters who also happened to be married in real life. CBS opted to go with the euphemism "Lucy is Enceinte" to avoid upsetting American sensibilities of the time.

My question is: why would pregnancy be considered obscene to the average American audience when pregnancy is generally considered (to the best of my knowledge) the least taboo and most celebrated aspect of reproduction. Especially when pregnancy occurs within the traditional confines of a marriage.

What need in American society was this censorship fulfilling?

I really want to know exactly and precisely what happened in the area in and around present day Mexico City after Spanish conquest, but so far all the sources available online for free only give a very murky picture that answer none of my biggest questions that I am looking for answers to. I have a feeling the books are not going to be anymore clear.

Why is this the case? Weren’t there a lot of Spanish people keeping track of everything and writing things down in Spanish in the lands they conquered ?

By comparison , it seems the history of English colonization of North America seems to be very well documented down to the smallest detail.

Some really big questions I have about the consequences of the conquest of the Aztec are:

1. Did the Native Americans ever grow to view the Spanish as a common enemy and band together to try to drive them out? If yes, why were they not successful?

2. How did the “Mestizo” racial mix become the dominant mix in present day Mexico if so many Native Americans were dying from smallpox and the amount of Spanish people in Mexico was always so low?

3. How did the Spanish go about mixing with the Native Americans? Were Native American women simply kidnapped and made into brides? Or did the majority of Native American women voluntarily entered into relationships with the Spanish?

4. Did the allies of the Spanish in the war against the Aztec feel betrayed after they lost special privileges soon after the conquest was complete? Did they revolt against the Spanish when this became apparent ?

5. After conquering the Aztec , how were the Spanish able to maintain control of the region if their numbers were so low all the time ?

So mostly I have seen that people conclude the migration theory for Indian subcontinent as open and shut case but when I search extensively there are lot of discrepancies and assumptions with lot of bias ( either the bias towards aryan migration theory or out of india theory).

So I wanted to ask here as what, if there is any, is the current archaeological evidence that:

• Identifies that large people migrated to the Indian Subcontinent?
• They brought their own culture which was later assimilated into the Indigenous culture?

I am asking for archeological evidence because it is more firm as compared to literary or linguistic.

This is something I've always been curious about but wasn't able to get clear answers about in school when that time period in US history was being discussed. I've heard it referred to as "switching" platforms in the past and wanted to know what events or even specific people precipitated this change among the two main political parties.

Hello, why do western countries call Moscow "Moscow" and not "Moskva"? We call other Slavic cities by their spoken name like Kyiv. Thanks guys.

Was having a conversation with a friend today and he mentioned that the concept of childhood (as in, people at that age ought to be nurtured, need an education etc) was a relatively new concept that only came about in the last ~200 years. I think he might have heard about that from Dan Carlin's podcast. I am wondering if this idea has any validity to it. Thanks!

I’ve heard it said that the distinction from Sunni Islam from Shia Islam is a relatively recent thing, I wanted to know if this is the case