Anyone catch the article in the latest Atlantic that basically says a Harvard scholar of Early Christianity got suckered by a pornographer and forger?

I mean, that's cutting to the essence of the thing - the whole story is way waaaay more complicated and weird, and gets into BMW brake parts and a museum to the Stasi in Berlin, as well as the difficulties in authenticating ancient texts.

Don't forget that /r/HistoryAnecdotes is still a thing!

• Bite-sized, entertaining anecdotes from history!

• New content EVERY day

• Always sourced!

• We usually include a 'Further Reading' section for anyone looking to learn more about anything mentioned in a submission

• Academic discussion always encouraged

• Great community!

I will make the submission topic for the AskHistorians book club this Sunday. We'll trial the two week rotation at first and make adjustments if we need to. So start scouring Google Scholar for an article you think people will enjoy reading. And remember to make sure that we can access the article.

Ideas for future Tuesday Trivia topics:

Student-Teacher relations -- maybe extend this into something like mentors and trainees. I have some great anecdotes about famous rabbis and their sometimes unconventional teaching methods. I also know there are some famous (or infamous) records of upper-class tutors who were able to retain significant influence over their charges for decades afterwards.

Summer Festivals -- it's that time of year, let's hear about how people in your area lived it up during the dog days of summer.

Hazardous Pastimes: Fireworks, Bull-Fighting, and Mumbley-peg -- a good theme for July 4th. Talk about the bafflingly dangerous (or simply somewhat risky) things that people do for fun.

Booms and Busts -- often economic developments that seem important at the time turn out to have been fleeting. But sometimes business developments booms that are of ultimately limited economic impact have an outsized influence on shaping the identity of a place, like with the 1849 California Gold Rush.

Just musing in a few spare minutes since the queue on the wiki looked a little bare. Thoughts?

Got an article published for the first time, about modernization plans after WW2 for a specific country. It as second author together with my master thesis advisor, but hey, published is published, right?

Next step: Getting that PhD-grant.

I will now present a short play, titled On the Importance of Listening to What Your Employees Say

"We will celebrate Eid in three weeks. I'd like to take annual leave for that"

"No, we don't have enough people in the office for that time. You can work from home, but you have to work"

"But I'll be at my parent's home, and they don't have high-speed Internet access"

"You still have to work. We don't have enough people"

"Just to make it clear, I will not be an effective worker in any way. You will need to tell the queue manager to assign any tasks to me at that time"

"Okay. Thank you for understanding"

/shrug

Well, I've tried. If management wants to dig their own graves, fine with me. I don't know why they want me to "work" when I told them I'll be functionally useless.

Hello all, I was wondering if maybe an upcoming feature or ama could be on international/transnational history. I took a course on Atlantic history earlier this year, and it got me thinking about how different narratives are being produced. Does this seem like a good idea? I know economic and cultural have been done before.

The cast of Hamilton performed "The Battle of Yorktown" at the Tonys.

You should watch (or watch again).

:)

Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too.

What are some good church history textbooks? I've found the Penguin/Pelican history of the church series, but they seem to be a bit dated now. I've found some other big over-arching church history books that cover 1000 years in a single volume, but now I'm curious to find things that are a bit more specific. Any suggestions? Any period is good, really.

Hello all! As I have noted previosuly, and some of you have noticed, Automod has been running a few filters in the sub.

The first is filter which encourages the pinging of flaired users, for the purpose of letting them know a question in their field exists, to be done by Private Message instead of by posting in the subreddit

The second is sort of the opposite, where, when you link to an older response in the subreddit or to the FAQ and don't acknowledge who the author was, it encourages you to edit your post to include the username (Aside from simply giving due credit, it also means that if someone asks a follow up, which you might not be equipped for, the original author knows their old response might be getting attention).

Well anyways, it has been running for about a month now, and I've worked out some of the kinks noted in my previous check in, but time for round two. Have you gotten the Automod notice? Was it sent in error? If so, what was the (likely) false positive?

The main one which I'm still having trouble with is linking to ones own old answer, as unless you are /u/gaius-julius-caesar, you probably aren't writing in the third person so don't include your own username! The work around for this, currently, is the inclusion of phrases which I gathered up last check-in, or how people usually introduce those posts! Right now, including "i wrote, i described, of mine, my post, or my answer" should keep Automod satisfied, but I can't account for every incident. So, what phrases am I missing?

Does anyone have any recommendations on high ambition, high impact medieval European figures (1350-1450) that spent a lot of their time conquering/unifying different regions (politically and/or militarily)? I'm pretty interested in Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Cesare Borgia, Napoleon, and so on but I'm interested in more figures especially from that period.

I noticed some weird tendencies in people writing about the Germans in WWII, mostly in that they seem to hold two contradicting mindsets, if not concrete arguments. Like, I love Rob Citino, but his argument in Death of the Wehrmacht seems to be that Bewegungskrieg was no longer going to work in 1942, while recounting how the Germans came within one mile of the key Georgia Military Highway, or two hundred yards from the Volga in Stalingrad. Like, you get people arguing that the Germans weren't as skilled as often portrayed, and that Allied victory was inevitable from the word go (with the implication that no matter how skilled the Germans were, they would have lost, which makes the 0-2 argument kinda meaningless).