Growing up with a love of history, I tended to view him as "the good guy" in the Chinese Civil War. Now, I know that history is never black and white.

I am reading Plato’s Dialogues for the first time and find that you can basically read them like modern essays, and yet some of them were written ~400 years before Christ. Then you look at the Bible, which can be lyrical, but stilted and archaic-sounding, and yet it was written centuries after these Ancient Greek treatises. Why is that? Is it just supposed to be more inscrutable and mysterious? It just feels like regression to me. Thank you!

I don’t know if “historical excavation” is a thing but what I mean is when it becomes official where a university or museum gets involved.

I'm aware that the earliest tanks were generally a mixed bag when it came to their battlefield performance, but I'm curious about the more intangible effect they would have had on the battlefield. Would soldiers have been happy to fight alongside them and frightened of having to fight against them, or were they seen as just another entry in the long list of hazards present in trench warfare?

Like New England and New Spain for example

Did George Washington really only serve two terms simply because he thought it was best for the country? I find it hard to believe that any person, would willingly give up power. They almost always fall victim to the belief, rightly or wrongly, that they are the best person to lead.

Is there any reason to believe he may have been pressured to only serve two terms or that the job was becoming too much of a burden to him?

Do you believe Trumans speech that this was a humanitarian effort or was there a geographical advantage to bailing out these countries after the war?

A few days ago I went into /r/AskHistorians FAQ to read a bit into Soviet history and realized that a good number of the answers regarding the topic are 7 to 8 years old (that's the case with a lot of the questions in the FAQ) and the quality of the answers is much poorer than the standard of today. I'm not trying to say that those old answers are wrong or anything like that (I'm not knowledgable on the topic to even begin to suggest that), but those are questions that most newbies to this subreddit are more likely to ask, so I think updating some of those older questions might be a good idea, to make what's already an awesome subreddit even better.

I would like to know the people of this subreddit, and it's mod their opinion on the "issue"?

If this was an already asked question and mods already addressed this I would love to read your answers.

My understanding is that there are only two contemporaneous references to this purported seafaring culture. Further, from what I understand, those two references are both from Egypt and then the context of self aggrandizement. The truth is I’m not entirely sure they existed… Am I wrong to question that?

Hi historians! I'm Maya, a historian-in-training. Most of my education has been geared towards American history, and I'm now very well-versed in it. In fact, I like to think of myself as someone who is pretty proficient at historical thinking for an undergraduate student. However, I'm currently taking Indian history, and I'm struggling to get a hold on it because I don't have a foundation for understanding it. So far, I've read a textbook about Indian history (Modern South Asia 4th ed., by Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose), and am now delving into actual scholarship, but it all just seems so muddled and incomprehensible to me. It's almost like I don't know how to digest and ascertain the overall contours of a history which is new to me. So, here's my question: How do you, as historians, teach yourself histories of which you have no prior knowledge (from the ground up)? Any advice is deeply appreciated, and please let me know if there's a better subreddit I can post this to. :)

If you have to be born a US citizen to become President, how did any of the men before Van Buren even take office? I guess that there was some sort of exception but what were the technicalities about it?

Hatshepsut and Cleopatra are arguably the more popularly known female Pharaohs of Egypt. There were lesser known ones, such as Sobekneferu, several more Cleopatras, and others.

We know much about their careers and deeds as rulers, but I don't see much recorded in the way of opposition to, or defense of, a lone woman ruling Egypt against a vast majority of male Pharaohs. Did these women face many open challenges to prove their worth as women? Was Egyptian society generally amenable to their rule?

For instance, we know that Thutmose III had Hatshepsut's monuments defaced, for a variety of suggested reasons that all seem political or strategic. But was he ever noted for opposing on the mere fact that she was a woman?

I learned about his theory of relativity as a child. A decade later, I think I only kind of understand it. I associate his name with e=mc^2 , but I don't really know what the implications or applications of that equation are.

I'm a pretty average dude, so I'm guessing the laymen of the 40's also didn't know what he was talking about. He has that in common with all the brilliant scientists that have lived since him. So why does he stand out? Why is he one of the few scientists whose names are recognized by those not in the world of academia?

Did they justify it because of the economic gain? Or were there other reasons?

I'm not American, but I'm trying to learn more about US history and the general population's opinion.

Any suggestions?

Any general readings are preferred. However, if I am to be specific, I would like readings on the historiography of colonial Indian history.