My Russian wife would like to learn more about American history. She would prefer something easy and entertaining to read. Basically a book or book series that covers the majority of American history at least the big events throughout history that most Americans tend to learn about in school growing up.

I am guessing this will need to be more than one book but if there are some recommendations for a beginner that has great English but is still learning that would be very much appreciated. I would be ok sacrificing detail for entertainment as well if the writing is simply easier and more enjoyable to read.

This question gets asked about English alot on this sub and I was curious if it similarly applies to my own language of Italian. Now I am aware of the thousands of dialects too, which my true native language is Sardinian, but I assume the dialects are going to come into the context of this question as well. I've read Dante and understand it pretty well. I can read Latin somewhat ok too as it seems very familiar to Sardinian.

I understand that they were primarily for very special occasions such as weddings, but how did they get about practically whilst remaining elegant? What was the etiquette when passing through doors or being around other people or getting in and out of carriages for instance?

Thanks in advance for any insight you are able to shed :)

I know that in the 15th century the system we'd recognize as a postal-service started cropping up, but back in the 4th crusade the Templars (and other orders like them) were still around and with them their internal messenger-system which seems to have been very effective. However I can't seem to find anything specific about either event only general statements on the speed of messengers (I suspect they might have hurried more with news this momentous however).

Non-historian here, very interested in history based on a recent delve into the Fall of Civilizations podcast. Guys, what you do is so awesome, thank you for your contributions to our world!

I have a process question for you. How do historians learn from primary historical sources written in different / ancient languages? Specifically, I am thinking about the Mayan codices and the Florentine Codex / surviving Aztec codices, some of which I gather were originally written in both Nahuatl and Spanish. The question is more general, though, too, and covers historical documents written in languages the historian does not understand as well--be it French, German, etc.

As an English speaking non-historian, it seems like the ridiculously obvious answer is to rely on translations into your own fluent languages, but isn't that a major limiting factor in this area of study? It would seem to mean a whole swath of historians that do not speak the original or thus-far translated languages of the historical works cannot study that source, and even those that do understand the translated language(s) are relying on the translator's accuracy and fidelity in the translation. I am guessing there are cases where translators differ in their opinions of meaning, which could have a major impact in understanding.

When a primary source is translated for the first time into a language like English, French, etc., is there a corresponding spike in study and academic literature, resulting from a whole new population of historians being able to access the information?

Thanks for helping me understand how historians "do history"!

I’m interested in know how did the relationship between the allied powers and West Germany evolve after WW2. Thanks in advance

I see this questions all the time for English speakers and I wonder if there is any difference for Spanish.

I was just thinking we all make fun of Donald Trump for the fake tan and bad hair. But I wonder what the reaction from the public would be if he just one day decided, for example, he was going to embrace male pattern baldness and ditched the combover. Has anything like that ever happened before in the past? Or is a president’s steady appearance a visual indication of their steady policies (or some baloney like that)?

Hi, I am looking for some books or articles that have any of these beliefs:

Hitler had a limited role in the Holocaust, it was mostly the lower ranking Nazis who made the decisions.

The Holocaust was not a long term plan, it was something that 'evolved' with no specific direction

Any help would be appreciated!

Basically title

I have been reading a bit about the crisis of the third century in Rome and I found this quite interesting figure who apparently led a shortlived rebellion of mint workers against Emperor Aurelian. From what I gathered from the wiki sources it appears that he‘s only been talked about by people who lived years later. So are there any sources (whether material or textual) referring to either this rebellion or Felicissimus himself?

For reference, I was born and raised in Northern Virginia and so I've been to George Washington's Mt. Vernon home numerous times. There is a great museum there currently and Washington's dentures are there, which was made from cow and human teeth. The museum showed that Washington would pay his slaves six shillings for their teeth which led me to asking this controversial question in the first place:

How did George Washington treat his slaves in general ? If Washington had the decency to pay his slaves for their teeth, I'm ought to assume that maybe he treated them pretty decently and he took care of them. I know Washington had a slave assistant who practically became one of his good friends (according to a history channel documentary I've seen with experts). I've seen the slave quarters at Mt. Vernon numerous times and it didn't seem as "dungeony" or sad as one might think. It seems as though the slaves after dark were allowed to mingle and socialize amongst themselves (only in the slave quarters of course). I think a little over 20 slaves ran away from Mt. Vernon. When I went there recently, I thought: "well, where else would a runaway slave go ? How else would he get his money in a White world ? They have free board and food here..." . This was an interesting yet very controversial thought I was having as I was there at the slave quarters.

Unfortunately there is a ton of emotion in America with slavery. I am just wondering how Washington actually treated his slaves AND I want you to tell me why you think think so based on the historical records and artifacts left today. I searched this question and no one has asked this before on Reddit apparently, thanks for the input !

It is clear that it did not survive much longer after Corvinus's death. What I'm curious about is the details of its destruction. Was it destroyed as part of a larger sack or intentionally targeted by the Ottomans?

The popular narrative surrounding and rationalization of the dropping of the atomic bombs by the US on Japan is that it ultimately saved lives by causing the Japanese surrender and eliminating the need for an amphibious invasion.

However after reading on the subject, it seems by far the primary reason Japan capitulated was because of the completely unforeseen declaration of war and subsequent invasion by the Soviet Union, which almost overnight annihilated their vaunted Kwangtung Army and seized their Manchurian territories. And in fact, the atomic bombs made little impression on the Japanese, whose cities were already being virtually obliterated by the the conventional US strategic bombing campaign. Thus the atomic bombs really made little to no difference on the Japanese surrender, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians potentially needlessly.

Is there any merit to this perspective on the Japanese capitulation?

as I understand it, acronyms like "lol", "lmao", "brb", etc. all developed because of character limits on text messages. Did telegrams have similar acronyms, and if so, in what ways do they show up in modern life?

The American Revolution I noticed was amazingly Unique among those done in the Modern Era. It didn't devolve into an Autocracy like those in Mexico, Brazil, and Gran Colombia there was no Civil War that happened right after. No killings or External Powers trying to take advantage of the new Nation like in Haiti. Why is that? Were there just no seams in the Republic where factionalism could happen?

Is it true that nations that industrialized had to pay a price in form human lives? Moreover, such rapid changes were the reason for many revolutions in late 18th and 19th century? Eg- Britain lost 15-20% of population in late 18th century.

Someone in r/nostupidquestions said this would be a good question for you guys, so here I am!

So, because of how languages evolve over time, there must be a point where if I went back in time, the English I speak now would be unrecognizable to English speakers of the past, right? I am just curious how far that is. At what point would I no longer be able to reasonably communicate with people?
At what point would I not even recognize a single word?
Could other languages go further back?

Just figure over all these centuries, there has to be some example of this where twins were born and a correct line of succession had to be established.

The KGB and its predecessors have sometimes had their own agenda. Yet, during the Thaw and thereafter, the KGB ceased to be the fearsome force that they were during Stalin's time. How did this change take place? Did it happen during one of the renamings of the agency? Or was it because Beria was eliminated? Did the people inside the KGB change their methods, or were they simply replaced? Obviously I understand there was the broad change in Soviet policy that happened under Khrushchev but when it comes down to the details, how did these changes in policy propagate to the security forces such that the average citizen no longer needed to live in fear as they did in the 30s?