The general advice of the moderators of r/AskHistorians is Don't get a PhD in History. With Higher Education being what it is and going where it's going, pursuing a doctorate typically leads to extreme stress, social isolation, mental illness and (possibly permanent) financial precarity. You will be vastly more likely to secure a good career by switching to teaching now - ideally in a subject other than history, since there are too many history teachers on the market already.

This is not to say that there aren't still people who mostly get by and enjoy academia's challenges (myself, so far, included). But these people tend to be both very privileged and very lucky, and they should not be your measuring stick. The best advice is only to embark on an academic career if you genuinely can't help yourself, if you can't let go of your deep and enduring desire to learn more and any other job would make you profoundly miserable. If that's not you, it's better to start building a more sustainable career path as soon as possible.

As for PhD vs teaching, it really depends on where you are. Almost all the advice here for postgraduate decisions are US-centric and not applicable to Europe. Each country is different, and often different regions in each country are different. If you do decide to do a PhD, be prepared to move around often to chase jobs.

In the UK for example, there is a shortage of history teachers - especially medievalists. I'm going to start my PhD in September but I could, if I wanted to, walk straight into a teaching job after getting a teaching qualification. I had to make the exact same decision and when I looked for teaching jobs in schools there were 5 schools in a 40 minute commute looking for history teachers. But the pay is shit and the workload is insane (though that is even more true of doing a PhD!). Even though we are told that the postdoc job market is awful, I have seen postdoc after postdoc from my uni get lecturing positions for medieval history throughout the UK. That being said, mine has a particularly good reputation, especially for The Crusades, which is what I'll be researching. From what I have been told speaking to a couple of former tutors, who taught me when they were PhD students and now have rather nice positions at KCL, is that it can be lonely and difficult - especially the first and last years - but worth it if you really love the subject and neither of them regret it considering where they are now. But, obviously, they are the success stories, and there are doubtless many postdocs who fail to get a foothold in academia and spent 3 years of hard work only to be unable to do what they love.

I feel like I should probably offer an alternate perspective. I'm a true amateur, I guess - I don't have a degree in history (my college education was in philosophy, classics and historical math/science, none of it taken in a very historical way) and I'm not working professionally in the historical field now, though I volunteer here and in person a lot. What I know I've taught myself, or learned from historians around me (and seriously, I've watched their methods like a hawk). And I like to think I've picked some things up - source criticism, historiography, heck, just focusing a historical -question- into something that's answerable are all things I've learned at the feet of more experienced and formally trained historians. But to be fair, I've also learned a few of them from the school of hard knocks - if you don't learn these basic skills you'll end up repeating the mistakes of enthusiasts and professionals that came before you. Talk about history enough on the internet in places that aren't here and you will see every mistake of past historiography repeat itself as farce, in real time. If you pay attention, this kind of experience can teach you a lot. I like to think I do alright when it comes to studying history. I can analyze and critique primary sources, evaluate and synthesize secondary sources and place them in the context of my field of study, and I can venture my own attenmpts to synthesize this information.

And yet, I still miss the formal training. I haven't had the thorough education in method that comes with a formal graduate school training in history - I have tools, but I have trouble articulating a methodology at the outset of my research, sticking to it and then combing through the results - what I've done so far is more ad hoc, and that has limited it. More prosaically, some basic skills, like archival research, aren't things I've been formally trained in, so I'm not as good at using those tools as I'd prefer, and it's frankly a little daunting as I look to do more original research and start working toward a book. All of this has me whistfully thinking about going to grad school some day.

And yet, do I wish that I had gone to grad school in history? No. Because when you're talking about grad school you're talking about years of your life, and I'm pretty happy with how I've lived it in the meantime while I haven't been in school. I got married, set down roots, bought a house - all things grad school would have made hard. This is all prosaic, non-academic stuff but I think it is important - when you go to grad school you are giving years of your life - often some of your youngest, most energetic years - and often putting other aspects of life on hold while you finish. I genuinely think that I would be a better scholar if I had a graduate degree in history. But I am also very glad to have lived those years outside of school. So like u/sunagainstgold and u/Iphikrates say above, do it - but do it because you don't feel like you have a choice.

I would love to here from an mature students doing one. I'm from the UK and often find a lot of the advice very US centered (obviously) but therefore hard to gauge its relevance. I'm about to finish my MA at the age of 40 and seriously considering doing a PhD, possibly part time. I have jacked in my job in anticipation of it. I know im extremely privileged I suppose in having money and a wife who earns for both of us if needs be. Enough to fund a 4-6 year mistake.

But what I would like to know is what are the chances of landing even the lowest paid graduate teaching positions. (I know in the UK schools are begging for teachers) but are universities after the equivalent of teaching assistants? I'm happy to be a dogs body.

Or does anyone get any cash from monetising Internet content, tutoring etc. I only need pocket money to make it more appealing than my current career.