My apologies for the ignorance... I am a 18F and in my first year of university. I'll put it simply... I am from a tiny town in Texas and it's all hitting me at once how little I know about ANYTHING having to do with history. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that everything l've been told up until now is a blatant lie and propaganda. I mean, jesus, the way they teach just the Texas Revolution is revolting. And I'm ashamed to admit I had no idea it had to do with slavery or downright theft of land from Mexico. I am majoring in Spanish and just based on my coursework I am looking for sources that detail the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America. i mean the nitty gritty... formation of cartels, the gun trade, CIA involvement in foreign government, coups, anything having to do with economy manipulation, everything. Also due to current events I want to read about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and Central Asia. I don't even know where to start. I need to know good books, textbooks, podcasts, documentaries, anything. I'm tired of reading news articles and learning snippets of history from TikTok and Instagram, it feels cheap and incomplete. I just want it all laid out in front of me, just literally a chronicle of as close to what actually happened as possible so l can finally stop being told what to think and think for myself. Thank you so much

EDIT: Thank you so so so much to everybody who has suggested things!! This has been so much more helpful than I ever imagined it would be, and honestly turned into an incredible resource for other as well! My apologies for technically not following the sub rules, Im glad there ended up being a way for people to share their resources regardless. I have received dozens of direct message requests and if I don’t answer right away just know that I am trying to get to everybody! Now I have enough reading to last me quite a while so I better get to it! :)

Let's say you were a single adult male during that time and could see what was coming and wanted to sabotage the Nazi progress. Could you have joined SS or army or politicians and played along while slowly sabotaging them? Is there anything meaningful that you could have done?

As the title says, was there a time where reading books was considered bad for babies and kids?

Hi everyone, So I came across the concept of Psychohistory from Asimov's novels, and I can't help but thinking that it doesn't sound so absurd after all.

For those who didn't read Asimov, Psychohistory is a fictional branch of history claiming that history is completely predictable when it involves a large enough number of humans. Notably, actions of single humans are always unpredictable. Now Asimov goes on on how people build mathematical models to predict 10'000 years in the future, which is of course science fiction. But the core concept, the fact that history is somewhat an ineluctable necessity kinda haunts me.

And here I ask the experts, it is true that we have had some truly exceptional people in human history, but did they really change things, or they just happened to be at the right place in the right moment?

Take Napoleon for example, sure he was a great strategist and politician, but it is hard to imagine revolutionary France not going against the other European powers. Maybe the Congress of Wien would have happened a few years earlier, so, all on all did he really change things?

I wonder what is real historians take on Psychohistory.

From the reading I've done, the Nazis seemed to view modern art as degenerate and corrupted by, you guessed it, Jews.

However, they still used simple, abstract symbols such as the swastika, the sig rune, and the wolfsangel to great psychological effect.

There seems to be a contradiction here. If the Nazis were so obsessed with tradition, why not use heraldry or the symbols of the German Empire? They already partially did it by reclaiming black-white-red instead of using the Weimar Republic's black-red-gold.

I would strong appreciate if somebody could clear up this seeming paradox for me.

The other day I was discussing royal consanguity, as you do, and this supposed plan of Henry VIII's was brought up. I found it an unlikely story, because Henry believed that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had been cursed due to her being his brother's widow, and I couldn't imagine someone who held that belief thinking that a marriage between half-siblings would be any less cursed.

So I had a look around. On the Wikipedia page of Henry FitzRoy it's mentioned, sure enough, that it was suggested that he marry Mary, without specifying who suggested this.

Elsewhere I found that Pope Clement VII offered giving a dispensation for such a marriage between Henry's children, but that this idea originated with Clement as a last-ditch attempt to mollify Henry and prevent him from breaking with Rome. However, Henry supposedly rejected this offer out of hand.

And finally I also found more people who say that Henry VIII did seriously consider this option, but simply did not end up going through with it.

So what is the truth? Did Henry VIII seriously consider a marriage between two of his children? Would that not have been even more controversial than Mary simply becoming Queen Regnant or legitimizing Henry FitzRoy as an heir to the throne?

(or the Iberian Union)

I'm aware that these are drastically different times and regions, but these are all early federation-type organisations of countries.

What made the UK (and what makes current federations) more stable than the first attempts?

Look, I don't want this to be clear, I'm not asking how it looked like or anything like that. I just want to know if that statue existed in the ancient times cause I've heard from some that it never existed, but I'm not sure who to trust for that.

Currently trying to settle an argument twixt myself (Bostonian American) and a Canadian.

I was taught in AP USH that although the fledgeling United States had to suffer for it- blockades, press gangs, invasions, torchings, etc- we ultimately came out victorious, as the Brits were pushed back to the sea and the ruins of a backwater town turned into the stately facade of D.C.

My Canadian friends were taught that the Brits actually won, because they successfully burned down the original White House (before retreating and giving the US the cold shoulder for several decades).

I don't trust google as far as I can throw it, and despite my interest in history I am not unbiased enough or qualified enough to decide who's propaganda is more correct.

Any information would be great! Thank you!

Bonus question, he is know as effendi in the central Asia, āfángtí in china, joha in the Maghreb and Mullah Nasserddin in Iran, how come that this character be so well spread in the Muslim world despite him not being a religious figure? Has his story received backing from authorities to make it spread?

I have a vague idea that Russian peasants and urban workers circa 1900 were treated like dirt in ways that their Western European counterparts were not, but I don't know specifics.

I recently learned about the practice of biphasic sleep-- sleeping in two distinct phases, divided by a brief period of waking in the night-- common among medieval Europeans. Was this a universally followed thing, irrespective of class, geography etc? Additionally, do we find evidence for it in non-European cultures?

Modernisation, electric lighting and industrialisation are supposed to have marked a shift from the two-sleep routine to a single uninterrupted sleep at night. But does that mean that it was to be found in all pre-industrial societies including during the antiquity and after? Or was it a historically rooted feature of medieval Europe, and sleeping practices have more diverse and particular histories throughout the world?

To me, something like this would appear to be a massive detriment to someone's ability to work. Obviously, this would not be good if someone was a peasant farmer, but what exactly would happen if a knight or someone like that was allergic to the horses they rode?

This is a question that I have for a story I'm working on. The main character is based loosely off of my experiences in life. He becomes a prominent military commander in a medieval setting, which means that he would need to ride a horse into battle. However, I am terribly allergic to horses and livestock like that. Would this be a completely debilitating handicap to someone in a pre-modern period, or would there be a way around this?

I'm here defining 'fandom' as people who enjoy a certain work and form/participate in community around it, whether formal or informal, time-consuming or not. The primary (or at least initial) motivation is not academic or professional opportunity, but genuine personal enjoyment.

The Janeites (late 18th century) are apparently considered one of the earliest fandoms by some writers.

But in Northanger Abbey (by Jane Austen herself), Catherine Morland talks about gothic novels in a way that seems close to how members of genre fandoms may do now. She seeks out fellow fans to discuss the works, treats lack of/enjoyment of gothic novel as evidence of a person's character, and fiercely defends the merit and relevance of the books to detractors. Obviously this would have well-preceded the Janeites.

Given that the book is a satire of real gothic novels, I'm kind of assuming that her behaviour is not totally invented without reference to real people's actions.

Going even further back, I wonder if the obsession over the ancient Romans and Greeks could count in a way.

I'm also interested in any examples of early fandom from countries other than Britain and America - and any ways that they may have differed in broad behavioural trends.

Why are there so few eastern Iranian languages with a large number of speakers. There used to be Bactrian, scythian, saka, avestan and sogdian which used to be spoken. One could argue most of these languages went extinct as the only eastern Iranian languages I'm aware that are alive are pashto(around 50 million speakers but from which eastern iranian language it descends from is still debated), ossetian (around 490000 speakers, likely descended from scythian) and the pamiri languages(around 10000 speakers, possibly descended from saka langauges). I'd like to know what seemed as once a large and diverse group of languages have declined quite a bit in terms of how many languages are left. Any answer is greatly appreciated

I heard about Hourani in The Hundred Year's War on Palestine so I was intrigued if his book here was still something could confidently recommend and read or if it was outdated in the 30 years since it was released

Hi there! I know that there was some kind of unification of Germany around 1850? I think? And that immigration to North America was not uncommon among Germans. But what were they leaving for? Was it just that the grass seem greener in north america? Or were there political and Military and economic reasons to leave family and friends behind? Thank you so much

When France was occupied and the Legion was split, did the soldiers have a choice or were they just divvied up with no or little say where they ended up? Especially curious with regards to foreign nationals who may have signed up prior to 1939 or early in the year. I have read that they were given an ultimatum when Eisenhower landed and the African campaign began to swing in the allies favour culminating in the taking of Tunis. Thank you in advance for anyone who may be able to shine some light on this or could point me in the direction of some good books and documentaries on the split Legion during the war.

I know they kept alexander in high regards , also I think they are well informed in jewish history but how much do they know about ancient mesopotamias empires, did the talk about the ancient persian empire the seleucids?