As the question suggests, I have seen a trend of American historians writing/ talking about American history (i.e american revolution, civil war) but nothing about european history and then you have a huge amount of european historians writing/ talking about european history (i.e spanish, medieval, roman, greek) but not american. I'm sure they exist which is why I'm here asking if anyone has any good suggestions. I'm also excluding WWI and WWII which I know is a wide subject for both place and this is one of the most written topic in the historical sphere. Any Mexican, Native american, latin america, middle east, african, or asian history talks/books are also welcomed!!! Just really trying to see if there are people writing/ talking about history outside of their scope.

PS: If this sounds too clunky I am more than open to try to explain myself further in the comments with any clarifications. Sorry in advance.

Hey. I've always loved history and have found myself in different "phases". For a time I was really into pike and shot warfare (i have no idea why). For a time I was into ww2 Germany (dont worry Im glad they lost). But now, im into the Zulu people, especially their conflict with the British.

I find the Zulu military system very impressive.

But, how do I know if what I've been told is right? More specifically, how strong their warriors were. Media has made it look like they could run for hours and then instantly beat you in hand to hand combat.

Were they really that strong? I know they were strong. But that strong?

I’m just curious about others as I’ve been getting into medieval history, and reading up on people like Vlad the Impaler.

For him, while I fully grant he was an absolutely brutal (and most likely insane) man, he was also going up against a pretty dangerous enemy at the time in the Sultanate.

While I know his actions didn’t necessarily stop them, he definitely gave them pause on multiple occasions.

So I was wondering if there were other notable figures that are like this, where they’re reputation is something of brutality, possibly even commonly depicted as being evil, but could also be seen as something like a necessary evil given their circumstances, such as a dangerous enemy, or major events beyond their control.

When I’m hearing about the voyages, it seems Europeans were the ones going back and forth between continents. This is before the 1700s, I know by the 1700s white Americans had started to make voyages from the Americas to Europe and back.
Europeans sailed back and forth to the Americas. The Europeans would pick up the slaves in Africa to take to the Americas, and pick up the products in the Americas to take back to Europe. But the indigenous Americans and white Americans didn’t sound like they made a lot of voyages to Europe and back to the Americas.
Why didn’t West African nations make any voyages to the Americas and back? Some of them were involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade and had general contact with Europe. So they would’ve been aware of the Americas existing and some idea of how to get there.
With being bound by natural geography, only Western European nations and Western African nations would have access to sail from the Old World to the New World. Only eastern coast nations in the Americas could make a voyage to Europe and back to the Americas.

Of course.I know the story of subutai khan but I don't even know the names of the other three dogs of war. Can I at least get that. I really do like Mongol history well it does get really annoying when it goes from. This is the most well document thing we have period to mean there's some shit.

This seems like an easily Google-able question but I couldn’t find the answer online. Portraits don’t seem to include any from what I could see, so I’m inclined to think not, but I couldn’t find any definitive answer.

So, did Isaac Newton wear jewelry? If so, what kind, and was it unusual for his community? I’m hoping for a ring in a museum or something like that.

I tried r/AskHistorians and they removed my post because it requires a short answer, then I tried in the weekly thread there but didn’t get a response. This seems like a really simple question but it is really difficult to get an answer.

Hey everyone

As you can see I’m looking for personalities that started their life “late” in life.

Because of many things that happened to me in life, I had to pause my life for many years and be there for my parents, siblings etc.

So I didn’t go to college/university after graduating high school. They needed me and many more things happened.

Hopefully, things are getting better and I can start my life now and start a new chapter.

However, I’m in my end 20s now and I feel like a failure sometimes. I don’t know what to do and if I’ll be able to achieve anything in life or have an impact.

I don’t wanna fall in a hole and give in to this negativity. So I was thinking: I can’t be the only one feeling like tht in all history

There must be more like me and maybe some of them achieved something

Maybe in a similar age

Maybe even older

Maybe all of this can help me make the right decision what to do with my life and have some sort of motivation.

So that’s what I’m looking for. Personalities all over human history that started their lives essentially “later” in life. For whatever reasons.

I’m not sure whether this is more of a history or linguistic question, but I’m asking as someone writing historical fiction. I’ve come across WWII memorials and novels where British and/or American WWII soldiers refer to Germans as “Jerry” regardless of number, while other texts use “Jerrys” or “Jerries” when referring to multiple Germans. So, for example, “waiting for the Germans to come” might be written either as “waiting for Jerry to come” or “waiting for the Jerrys/Jerries to come”.

Was there actually a difference in wartime usage? Was “Jerry” used as a collective noun (like “the enemy”), while “Jerrys/Jerries” referred to individual German soldiers, or were both forms used interchangeably? And if both were used, was the difference regional (British vs. Commonwealth, for example), or simply a matter of individual speech?

TIA!

Edit: typos

The inter war naval buildup and development of Japan was all aimed at the decisive battle doctrine. Also they preserved their battleships as much as possible during the pacific campaign to be able to counter an attack of the US battleship fleet.

In hindsight,why didn't they take the initiative and commit their battleship fleet after pearl harbor? They achieved their goal of knocking out or disabling multiple battleships. It would have been the perfect window to commit their battleships. Any insight on the topic is welcome. Thanks

I'm working on writing a fantasy novel, and I'm trying to figure out what general style of clothing my fairy species would have. They are small, have limited magic and basically no metal, but access to a variety of textiles including silk, plant fibers, and a fantasy creature's hair that works like most animal fibers would. My biggest issues are the fact that they can't have anything that crosses over their backs, since their wings take up a rather large amount of room, and whatever they wear needs to be aerodynamic enough because they need to be able to fly in it. (Which may cross out ancient greek as a style, which is where I was originally looking for ideas.)

I have no clue if this subreddit can help me, but someone over on r/worldbuilding recommended I try over here to learn about some pre-bronze age clothing ideas. Please let me know if you have any ideas, or even just some lesser known fact about clothes making before machines. (I already know about weaving and sowing, I mean stuff we don't do in modern times.)

Also, any explanations as to how a society develops its clothing styles could also be helpful! I am not the biggest history nerd so I'm not sure how such things come about, or even just how we think they might have come about. Maybe if I understand how styles develop outside of just form follows function I'll be able to give my characters some clothing diversity.

History is full of incredible stories that have never made it to the big screen.
It could be an extraordinary person or a forgotten event.
What deserves a movie, and why?

In OTL, the Bolshevik regime ceded over most of eastern Europe by way of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. At the end of the war, the USSR could not stake a claim to these regions, so the result was the creation of new nation states in eastern Europe.

Obviously, that was not what Russia had in mind at the beginning of the war. They expected to end up getting more land at the end of the war. If the czarist or Kerensky led regime had not backed out of the war, they would be sitting at the table with the other victorious powers.

In that case, would Russia have insisted on getting more land, e.g. additional parts of Poland or Czechoslovakia? Would they have been willing to cede over land they had had at the beginning of the war? At the end of the day, what would the new map of eastern Europe have looked like?