Has anyone else here had any frustration with finding incredibly simple errors in some published work and wonder how they made it to print without someone catching it? Any good examples?

Two books on Shawnee history came out this year: Gathering Together: The Shawnee People through Diaspora and Nationhood, 1600 - 1870 and Worlds the Shawnees Made: Migration and Violence in Early America. I'm hoping to read both over the upcoming winter break, but since I had some time this morning, I decided to open up Gathering Together and start that one, since it's due back to the library sooner.

And I immediately noticed a glaring error in the first sentence of the introduction (emphasis mine):

In March 1790, two Shawnee headmen called a council at Kekionga, a populous cluster of Shawnee, Miami, and Lenape (Delaware) towns located at the forks of the Maumee River, where Fort Wayne, Ohio, now stands.

For those unfamiliar with the geography of the region, Fort Wayne is actually in Indiana. True, everyone slips up now and then, but I'm surprised to see this mistake survive to print. It has soured me on the whole book at the moment. Maybe the rest is great, but if the author and his editors could let this mistake slip through, I'm going to be paranoid about the rest of the endeavor and other mistakes that might slip by my notice.

Another book I have rather blatantly fused Wahunsenacawh (more famously known as Chief Powhatan) and Opechancanough (his [half?] brother and successor) [into one person, who died twice](http://books.google.com/books?id=-hKB7AmyP5cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=native+american+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dVJvVJ2UFNG1yAS8yILgCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Powhatan%20(Opechancanough)&f=false) - once in 1618 and once in 1644. Of course, actually Opechancanough didn't die until 1646 when he was assassinated by an guard while a prisoner of the English... but that's another problem.

So I was thinking back to /u/NMW's old post on second opinion bias and was thinking of examples I run into. One I see pretty often on popular press is on Constantine's Christianity, which I'll break down into the thesis/antithesis/synthesis like this:

1. Constantine was the first Christian emperor, and obviously devout.

2. But wait, Constantine did several things that seem very unChristian! This means he was undoubtedly only faking it for political reasons.

3. Although many of Constantine's actions do not seem to conform to our idea of Christianity, his mother's devotion and his picking of Lactantius as a tutor, as well as many of his other actions, make it highly unlikely that he was insincere. We shouldn't expect a foueth century emperor to behave entirely with twenty first century ideas of Christian action.

Rinse, lather, repeat for virtually every Christian ruler until Louis the Pius.

Hey, historians! How do you deal with nationalism and its influence on historiography of your studied field?

So over the past couple of weeks I had the opportunity to proof-read a novel set in the Middle Ages that a friend of mine is writing, my main goal being to keep an eye out for glaring historical anachronisms and plot-holes in general. Last night we met and went over everything and it got me thinking about my pet peeves when it comes to historical fiction set in my area of study, so the chance to talk with a writer about my feelings on the topic ended up being fairly cathartic (for the record, I really enjoyed his book).

So I guess my question for everyone today is: what are the anachronisms, tired and recycled tropes, general misconceptions, and outright lies that absolutely rustle your jimmies when you read fiction set in your field that you would address given the opportunity to sit down with the author and hash them out?

Got to do my first real grading as a TA last week. The class (Ancient and Pre-colonial African history) had a midterm, which was fairly simple: some definition of names and/or people, and a long paragraph/short essay on a topic (the overwhelming majority wrote about the Rosetta Stone).

Armed with an answer key to help me along (as I've noted before, Africa is not exactly a subject I'm familiar with) I spent a couple evenings going through the 60 or so exams. Overall the class did fairly well, with most getting at least 80%, and only a couple failing. And only one student had any issue with my grading (another needed a correction as I wrote the wrong total down, but that doesn't count).

Next I get to mark their essays, due in a couple weeks. Talking to the prof I'm working with, I was told not to spend more than 45 minutes per essay. When I did the math on that, I was a little daunted at the time needed (the max for every paper would amount to nearly 50 hours), but I really hope I don't need to spend that much time on it.

Also note that while I went into the class unfamiliar with the subject, I've definitely enjoyed getting a free lesson on African history. It's been a neat course, and I'm glad I was assigned to it. And I'm kind of looking forward to marking the essays, just to be able to have the chance to learn some more about Africa, even if its written by first and second-year students.

President Reagan outlawed assassination by the US with Executive Order 12333. (Now we call them by other names to skirt the law)

Assassinations have played a large role in history. Why do so many states and groups seem to favor destructive wars over targeted assassinations?

Could someone recommend me a few books on Boston before and during the Revolutionary War? I recently began reading on the Revolutionary War and I'd like to dwell deeper into it. I'd really appreciate books covering things like the Boston Massacre or Bunker Hill.

I recently submitted a draft for my senior thesis on the Irish Land War. It was a long and hard process that I'm glad I did, although it is required for graduation, and feel better for it, but I'm so unbelievably happy that I'm done with that tumultuous assignment. I was just browsing reddit and saw the post and felt like adding my joy to the "free for all".

Does anyone have any recommendations on a book or books that deal with the system of government of Rome. Mainly the Republic era up to Augustus.

Rereading the Masters of Rome series and my interest moved from the characters themselves to the actual systems in place for government.

Thanks!

Hey guys, I've been interested in the World Fair for sometime now, and since its next year and I saw someone posted a picture from one of the world fairs, I decided to post here. What was the significance of the World Fair when it first began?

Bit of quick news, Japan announced new Antarctic whaling quotas since the ICJ ruling denouncing its previous 'scientific' catches. Understandably, I've seen a lot of the these reports coming out of Australian/New Zealand sources. Will be interested in seeing how the IWC decides to respond when reviewing the new Japanese program.

I'm reading Alistair Horne's The Fall of Paris about the Prussian Siege and the Commune, and while reading this i thought of two things: Horne does not like Victor Hugo much and while the parisians were sending out balloons with correspondences, etc. why hadn't they thought of attacking the Prussians somehow.

I imagine that the weight of any weaponry would be the primary issue, and a secondary one being the fuel available within the city. But in my mind I can just imagine what kind of chaos that would have created.

Since I keep having this question removed by mods even though I see waaaay more vague topics stay.....

Who, from history, would we be suprised to find out was physically disfigured or mentally deranged?

I wonder how many historians support the long cycle theory i read about it in a book about Portugal this summer. Would it be ok to ask this on this sub?

How does one history for a living?