Historians (or History Buffs), I have a question about how you mentally organize historical information in your mind.

When you think about history, what comes to mind? Do you think of one large timeline? Multiple timelines (by region, civilization, theme, etc.)? Timelines with maps? Maps with timelines? A network of interconnected people and events? Maybe it's more like file folders you can access, or a drawer you can open? Is it just a random assortment of dates, names, and events?

In other words, how do you mentally "encode" all of the information?

I find myself having to relearn information and events, so I wanted to hear how people who know history exceptionally well organize it in their minds.

Thank you!

Hi when I watch Reddit, I envy people who know about history very deeply and I wonder how they get such information. I don't know much about the internet. Please give me a tip…

Hi everyone! I was accepted into a few PhD programs, two in history, one in Scandinavian studies. The history program I would most be interested in would be an advisor looking at the history of newspapers across northern Europe. The Scandinavian studies advisor has written extensively on Sweden during WWII.

My research looks at attitudes towards Swedish neutrality and how it became part of the Swedish identity. Overall, the transition from a top-down government decision, to being a public desire. My overall goals are to work as a professor of history, or to conduct research in the nordics, working at museums.

My question is, would a Scandinavian studies program limit me if I want to work in the US or Sweden? Would I be able to work in a history department? Should I reach out to the Scandinavian studies program about doing a joint dissertation with the history department?

The history PhD is cheaper, both similarly ranked. I am applying for funding, but have to decide which program to list for the application.

Inspired by another post on here: I recently discovered lectures by Sarah Paine and Ada Palmer on the Dwarkesh Patel podcast, and really enjoyed both. It's just fun and entertaining to have someone who's an expert in a particular niche of history talk about their subject.

I know loads of history channels on YT, but want to get more stuff that tickles this fancy. I know there are podcasts like You're Dead To Me.

What are your favourite lectures by historians about their field of expertise?

HI!, so im april and im from Indonesia, and right now im researching about the spreading of Catholism in sangihe talaud (siau) in AFM (if remembered) or a Fransiscan document called Siauw. And i dont have any resources besides that. I was wondering for yall in spain or just a religic or fransiscan or maybe catholic historical researches have any insight that will be very helpful. Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I’m a high school student working on an undergraduate-level history paper about the relationship between Taiwan and South Vietnam during the Cold War, focusing on diplomatic, military and agricultural ties. I’d love some feedback on clarity, structure, and the argument overall. If this isn’t the right place for that, could someone please point me to a better subreddit?

Thanks so much.

Hi, it's my first-time attempting creative writing. I have a background in science and education.

I love philosophy and have been exploring themes by writing character development and origin stories about the early Cynics, however it's turning into an ​epic undertaking of historical fiction.

My objective is to map the origins of Stoicism by exploring philosophy through the Cynics.

​I am open to any type of collaboration: co-author/critique or accountability partner. As long as you love exploring philosophy.

Hi all!

I'm wondering how people here came up with their PhD research proposal.

I have an MA, focussing primarily on Nazi Germany and the holocaust. My MA dissertation was on Nazi propaganda from mid-1943 and the effects of the allied air campaign on it. In theory, if I were to do a PhD later on, I may want to continue with the propaganda focus, though I could also be minded to explore something else.

However, it's been a few years since I graduated and I am struggling to understand how to know where the niche lies. Obviously Nazi Germany has traditionally been a vastly-covered topic, and Nazi propaganda more so in the last few years. I have not kept up with any histories published in the last few years, so, due to my own failings, I am probably a bit in the dark about where the historiography currently lies.

How did YOU know what you'd want to focus on, and how can I find something worth researching?

TIA!

Education

A critical scholarly edition of one of the most important monuments of Mongolian historiography, the chronicle "Shara Tuji", compiled in the 17th century. The publication was prepared by the outstanding Russian Mongolist Nadezhda Petrovna Shastina and includes a consolidated text in the classical written Mongolian language, its academic translation into Russian, an extensive introduction, and detailed commentary.

I want to learn more about world history in my own time, more like as a hobby. Any resources? Websites..books..videos..anything.

I have a college project for credits I need to graduate but am stuck finding something to bind. I proposed this project because I have experience binding case bound books and wanted to make a sewn on boards book eventually anyway. Basically the project is to bind a historical text that ties into my major (biology) and bind it into a fairly accurate gothic style book. The issue is I am running out of time and have yet to select a text. I started looking for scans of books from between around 12th to 17th century but cant find anything complete, hell I cant even find complete Latin translations of any of the books I look for and whenever I think I find something it is less than 100 pages, which would look very strange bound in the manner I plan on (I might have to bind multiple books together to get my goal of 200-400 pages. If any of you guys know where I can find a PDF of any medieval books that even vaguely relate to biology I would be eternally grateful!

It seems that historians often revise accepted views after discovering a new contemporary source. But in every age there are outlier writers who are simply wrong, biased, or unrepresentative. Today we largely dismiss flat-earthers and people who justify atrocities as fringe voices rather than treating them as evidence of mainstream thought. Why shouldn’t we treat isolated historical sources the same way? How do historians determine whether a newly discovered source reflects a broader reality rather than merely preserving the opinion of an outlier?

Please remove if this is too off topic

Custers Last Stand, outlaws like Wild Bill and Calamity Jane, and just general American history from the late 1800s is what I've been into lately. What books do you guys recommend for this point in history? TIA

I've started reading Sapiens. but i can see a lot of people criticise the inaccuracies of harari but i like the surface level idea of how it just gives a gist to lot of things but i do not think it has some in depth evidence and most of them are conclusions rather than exploring in depth analysis and stating evidences. what are the similar books like Sapiens but tries to go in-depth and is quite reliable unlike Sapiens?

hi all! i’m a senior in high school who’s interested in both history (which i plan to study in college) and filmmaking/scriptwriting. recently, i came across a group of historical figures who i think would be an interesting subject for a feature, but my issue is that there is very little known about them in general. all i have to go off of are the names of six of the twelve people involved (four of which don’t include surnames) and a newspaper interview (with a handful of books that pretty much restate verbatim what this interview says, and never in more than a few paragraphs at that). to make things even more difficult, this occurred in Russia in a time when their census-taking/records were not super organized or easy to decipher (pre-/beginning of WWI). also… i don’t know Russian. 🫠

i’ve done extensive historical research for projects before—and also revolving around other countries whose languages I don’t speak—but never with so little to go off of. i’ve tried to look through some Russian records on Yandex, but haven’t really come up with anything yet. so, my question: how do you research people who only seem to be mentioned “in the footnotes” or in passing?

I already have an associates degree in library science. I have done several internships and I'm currently doing an internship on historical research. I'm trying to find any kind of job, I live in Washington. Are there any online historical projects that are looking for new people? Where should I start looking for work in history? Are there any historical preservation projects looking for people?

I’ve been trying to find books and videos to watch on World war 2 recently. Well this proposed an interesting rabbit trail because to learn about world war 2, you must learn about world war 1. But now to understand world war 1, I must learn about the Franco-Prussian war! Etc etc it goes on and on for centuries. I just want to learn about all these world events as far as eastern and western country conflicts and how they connect to each other.

What books/videos do you guys recommend starting with? Right now I think I might start with White Revolutionary by Lothar Gall.

When it comes to the philosophy of history we really have to understand it in two worlds, "History" as it is taught in academia which involves the study of the events of the past, the historiography, and the ever changing philosophies of history. However, most people are not historians and often have a skewed understanding of what "History" is and how it unfolds when compared to the academic side of things. So what are some bad takes you've heard, to clarify I'm not asking about misconceptions about the past (e.g. like the misconception that a Vomitorium was a place people went to throw up) but rather about misunderstandings about the philosophy of history, common historical fallacies people say, or misunderstandings about the purpose of writing and reading history. Here's a couple I thought of off the top of my head:

1. History repeats itself

When one historicizes their period they would agree with Guicciardini who said "It is most fallacious to judge by examples; because unless these be in all respects the parallel they are of no use, the least divergence in the circumstances giving rise to the widest possible divergence in the conclusions" quoted from Breisach's Historiography, third ed. 2007.

2) Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

In addition to the above comment, the statement is also moralizing, suggesting that we must learn a lesson from history in order to prevent some catastrophe. Each circumstance has different starting conditions and so "learning from history" (whatever that means exactly) will not always yield the answer to resolve your current situation

3) If history (i.e. the past) is unchanging then why bother reading a more recent book, aren't all these books basically the same?

I've seen this argument with Gibbon, and in a way it's half-true. The past will not change, however our understanding and framing of it will. Historians aren't writing dry chronicles, despite the narrative heavy nature of pop history. The collecting of evidence and the causal explanations given all help in crafting a whole new argument for phenomena. Not every history book is the same.

4) The conflation of Historian with "History buff"

The casual history buff is not on the playing field as the historian. The history buff is primarily familiar with anecdotes and basic narratives. History is reduced to little stories, narratives rely on simple often outdated understandings, the term "history" is used to essentially mean the political/regnal history of a nation. I hope I'm not sounding too elitist with this one because I do appreciate everyone's interest in history and always look to encourage instead of browbeating them into studying academic lit.

So what other bad takes and fallacies have you heard about the philosophy of history or history writing in general?