Historically Thinking

“Over the course of the sixteenth century,” writes my guest Catherine Fletcher, “the handgun made a transition from a novel and decisive military technology to become an everyday object, in use across society and carrying a new set of cultural associations that would persist through the coming centuries.”This was the firearm revolution.In this conversation, Fletcher explores how an evolving technology became a transformative one—not simply changing warfare, but altering the structure of society itself. Guns moved from battlefields into cities, homes, and daily life. In doing so, they reshaped how states exercised power, how individuals understood violence, and how social order was enforced.Catherine Fletcher is a historian of the Renaissance and early modern Europe, and is Professor of History at Manchester Metropolitan University.

The history of modern Syria is usually reduced to a story of autocracy, repression, and occasional revolt. And it is a short story, stretching back only to the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps to the secret terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided the Near East between Britain and France. But my guest Daniel Neep has a different perspective. He believes that such narratives overlook “the pre-​colonial foundations for modern Syria that were undertaken by reformers, infrastructure builders and identity entrepreneurs in the late Ottoman Empire.” They also neglect “the role that Syrians themselves played in determining the precise course of these borders” as well as the ways in which Syrians “ have fiercely clung to their right to live with respect and dignity.” These are some of the arguments which he develops in his new book Syria: A Modern History.Daniel Neep is Senior Editor at Arab Center Washington DC and a non-resident fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University. He has taught Middle East politics at George Washington University, Georgetown University, and the University of Exeter, and was previously Syria research director with the Council for British Research in the Levant. He has lived in Syria for five years, including for the first year of the uprising, as well as in Amman, and Beirut, and now lives in Washington, DC.

About a century before the birth of Jesus, during the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, a remarkable man began a nearly unprecedented intellectual endeavor. Sima Qian, like his father before him, was an official in the imperial court. Working on a plan left behind by his father, Sima Qian began writing a history of China for the two thousand years before his own time. The scope of his labors, and the historiographical discipline and philosophy of history that he brought to them, make him a sort of combination of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, and Plutarch. Yet in many ways, his personal life was just as extraordinary. With me to discuss this monumental figure in the writing of history, either in China or anywhere else, is Andrew Meyer, Professor of History at Brooklyn College, and an expert in early Chinese intellectual history. He was recently on the podcast discussing his book To Rule All under Heaven: A History of Classical China: From Confucius to the First Emperor.

In this short episode, Al introduces a new feature of the Historically Thinking podcast: the Historically Thinking Field Guides. Drawing on nearly 450 past episodes, these guides gather conversations around major historical themes—beginning with a first guide devoted to the Second World War—so listeners can explore topics through curated sets of episodes, questions, and commentary. Al also explains how the podcast is evolving on Substack, where listeners can receive expanded show notes, weekly “Friday Reflection” discussions with questions and reading lists, and future essays and collections of historical links. It’s a brief update on where the podcast is going in 2026—and an invitation to explore the growing archive of Historically Thinking.For more, go to www.historicallythinking.org

During the American Civil War an estimated 194,000 Union soldiers and 214,000 Confederate soldiers became prisoners of war. No prior or subsequent American conflict has seen such numbers. During the Second World War, approximately 124,000 Americans were held captive, but the chance of being captured in that conflict was roughly one in one hundred; during the Civil War it was closer to one in five. Captivity was not a marginal experience. It was central to the war.Indeed, the gigantic scale of prisoner-of-war camps was one of the conflict’s most consequential innovations. Every modern war since has produced successors to Andersonville, Point Lookout, Rock Island, and Florence. Yet prisoner-of-war camps remain oddly peripheral in our narratives of the Civil War, overlooked both as institutional innovations and as formative experiences for soldiers and their families. My guest, W. Fitzhugh Brundage, argues in A Fate Worse Than Hell: American Prisoners of the Civil War that captivity reshaped military policy, political rhetoric, racial attitudes, and postwar memory. Prison camps were not aberrations; they were integral to the modernizing logic of total war.For more on the guest, show notes, sources, and related episodes, go to the Historically Thinking Substack at www.historicallythinking.orgChaptersIntroduction - 0:00Historical Treatment of POWs - 2:35Parole System and Napoleonic Wars - 4:47Scale and Logistics of Civil War Prisons - 7:42Lincoln's Dilemma: Sovereignty vs Prisoner Exchange - 10:56Andersonville: Conditions and the Deadline - 31:48Point Lookout and Union Prisons - 47:25Prison Society and Community - 57:45Black Prisoners of War - 65:33Elmira Prison and John W. Jones - 82:11

Lutherans are a strange denomination in American religious history and culture. For Catholics they are certainly Protestants. For Protestants they are crypto-Catholics. While they have been around since the Swedes established their short-lived colony on the Delaware River, they have typically received as much attention in the American imagination as the short-lived Swedish colony on the Delaware River. But my guest Timothy D. Grundmeier has a different point of view. He argues in his new book Lutheranism and American Culture: The Making of a Distinctive Faith that Lutheranism was a central component of nineteenth-century American religion and of the era of the Civil War. This is because Lutherans were numerous, the nation’s fourth largest denomination by 1900; they were uniquely positioned in the American religious landscape; and they almost invariably expressed the opinion of the “moderate majority” in Union states outside the Northeast. And, as with every other aspect of American society, Lutheranism was reshaped by the struggle of the Civil War, and Reconstruction.Timothy D. Grundmeier is professor of history at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, Minnesota. Lutheranism and American Culture is his first book.Chapters00:00:00 - Introduction 00:02:60 - What is Lutheranism? 00:06:21 - The Civil War Era Defined 00:09:01 - Three Varieties of American Lutheranism 00:19:44 - The Old Lutherans and Missouri Synod 00:27:38 - How the Civil War Fractured Lutheranism 00:39:36 - The Slavery Debate: Walter and the Norwegians 00:47:20 - Lutheran Quietism After the Civil War 00:52:38 - The Great Lutheran Realignment 01:02:35 - Ideas, Institutions, and Cultural Context

The two hundred and eighty years between the death of the philosopher Confucius and the reign of the first Emperor of China saw one of the most profound revolutions in human history. Not only did it end with the creation of an imperial rule that persisted through successive dynasties for 2,132 years, but it also saw the creation of “new traditions of thought and practice…great monuments of art, literature, and philosophy…that still inform social life in our own lifetime.” The era of the “warring states”, as scholars call it, was critical not just for China or East Asia, “but to that of humanity writ large.”Yet this era remains almost unknown in the English-speaking world. “If one enters any bookstore…in search of a book about classical Athens, the conquestions of Alexander, or the early Roman Republic,” writes my guest Andrew Meyer, “one will have many options. But if one looks for such a book about the corresponding period in early Chinese history, there are none. I wrote this book to fill that gap.”Andrew Seth Meyer is Professor of History at Brooklyn College. A specialist in the intellectual history of early China, he is the author of The Dao of the Military: Liu An's Art of War and co-author of The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China. His latest book is To Rule All under Heaven: A History of Classical China, from Confucius to the First Emperor, which is the subject of our conversation today.Chapters0:35 - Book Overview & Historical Context 4:47 - Dating the Warring States Period 8:42 - What Are the Warring States? 11:08 - Social Structure & Aristocracy 18:39 - Rivers & Regional Differences 24:45 - Military Power & Wealth 31:37 - Four Great Questions: State Models 40:51 - Centralization vs Regional Autonomy 51:26 - Education & Intellectuals

This is the first ever Historically Thinking Roundtable. Given that it's 2026, it’s appropriate that this roundtable focus on the 250th anniversary of the United States, and how historians can be involved in its commemoration. Difficulties in doing this can arise from at least two reasons. One is that historians, like most academics, represent a relatively small slice of the political pie. And indeed, in these very partisan times, academics are some of the least trusted people in society–right around members of congress, according to a recent poll. Naturally academics and professionals in cultural institutions tend to get defensive about that, and beginning in a posture of attack and defense usually means that whatever happens afterward will not be good. But there’s another problem, one related to historical thinking. Historians are taught to tell the whole story, however complicated and messy. They often find anything less than that to be distortion. And while arguably civic thought requires an element of gratitude, that’s not how historians think of their own craft. These difficulties can be acutely felt by professionals in With me to discuss these difficulties, and how to resolve them are:Bill Peterson, Director of the State Historical Society of North DakotaTrait Thompson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Historical Society, host of the podcast, co-host of A Very OK PodcastBen Jones, South Dakota State Historian, and Director of the South Dakota Historical Society, Ryan Cole, historian, Speechwriter at U.S. Senate, author most recently of The Last Adieu: Lafayette's Triumphant Return, the Echoes of Revolution, and the Gratitude of the RepublicAnd Jill Weiss Simins, historian and Director of Special Projects, Indiana State ArchivesChapters0:00 - Introduction 3:20 - Community Conversations in Red States 13:04 - Telling Complex History 20:28 - When Is Complexity Bad? 25:12 - Bridging Alienation and Division 31:10 - Primary Sources and Making Arguments 37:35 - Historical Distortion and Noble Lies 47:15 - America 250 Local Projects

He was at various times in his life known as Gaius Octavius Thurinus; Gaius Julius Caesar; and Caesar Augustus. He called himself Princeps, the first man in Rome; the Roman Senate would eventually call him pater patriae, the father of his country. Heir to his great-uncle Julius Caesar, this 19 year old was dropped into the tumult of Roman political violence, and emerged from it the sole and undisputed victor after decades of civil war. He murdered hundreds, and then became the founder of a new Roman system that brought peace and prosperity to Rome’s citizens and inhabitants. He was tyrannical and giving, cruel and clever, manipulative and noble. And he has claim to be one of the most successful politicians to ever lead a nation or a kingdom, who created a system which lasted for hundreds of years after his death.With me to discuss Caesar Augustus is Adrian Goldsworthy, author of Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, now being reissued in its second edition. The annoyingly prolific author of a shelf of books, both of ancient history and historical fiction, Adrian Goldsworthy has been described as the OG scholar of the Roman Army and the Mr Darcy of Ancient History. Since his next book comes out in May, this promises to be the first of at least two conversations with him in 2026–and this is his sixth appearance on the podcast.ChaptersIntroduction: Caesar Augustus (0:00)The Standard Received View: Syme's Roman Revolution (1:33)The Importance of Names: Octavian vs Caesar (13:27)Why Not Call Him Emperor? (22:56)Why Did Julius Caesar Pick This Kid? (27:06)Augustus's Talented Circle: Agrippa, Maecenas, and Livia (36:20)Augustus's Travels and Provincial Administration (47:59)Marriage Laws and Religious Reform (57:34)The Aeneid: Propaganda or Great Literature? (64:08)The Last 16 Years and Augustus's Legacy (71:52)

For a very long time humans have been getting sick. Sometimes we have gotten sick more easily than at other times. From time to time we get sick from things a human body has never before encountered. Sickness is always present with us. And while injury we can understand–like breaking a leg, or having a rock hit your head–sickness can be as mysterious to people in 2026 who trust the science as it was to our ancestors 4,000 years ago. “Why did one patient heal,” my guest Susan Wise Bauer writes, “while another rotted? And what about the shivering, miserable sufferer who simply awoke with a sore throat and cough, after going to bed healthy and filled with plans the night before? It is the constant presence of sickness, not injury, that has shaped the way we think about ourselves and our world.”Susan Wise Bauer’s books include The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home (fourth ed., 2024) and The Story of Western Science: From the Writings of Aristotle to the Big Bang Theory. Her most recent book is The Great Shadow: A History of How Sickness Shapes What We Do, Think, Believe, and Buy. 0:00 Introduction 1:45 What This Book Is and Isn't 4:35 Did Hunter-Gatherers Get Sick? 9:50 Guilt and Sickness 14:00 Doctors as Priests 21:30 The Four Humors 25:15 Humoral Theory and Colonialism 29:45 Occasionalism: God's Will and Disease 35:55 The Black Death 40:45 The History of Drugs 45:50 Vaccines: Jenner and Cowpox 50:30 The Early 20th Century: Disease Returns 54:25 The Pax Antibiotica 58:30 Wellness Culture 61:45 COVID and What Hasn't Changed 67:15 Closing

On November 1, 1755, the city of Lisbon was devastated by a terrible earthquake, and a new era of urban planning began. The reconstruction of Lisbon was, more or less, the first time that modern planners had the opportunity to transform an urban landscape and bring it into line with their vision of what the future should look like. What shifting tectonic plates did to Lisbon would, in the future, be the job of bulldozers and wrecking balls. We take that for granted now, but we shouldn’t. In his new book The Invention of the Future: A History of Cities in the Modern World, my guest Bruno Carvalho tells two histories that our intertwined. One is the story of how histories were planned, built, or rebuilt. But the other is an intellectual history of how cities of the future were imagined. It turns out that those two stories don’t intersect as often as you might assume. Bruno Carvalho is a professor at Harvard University, where he teaches courses on cities. He is also the author of Porous City: A Cultural History of Rio de Janeiro.

In this episode of Historically Thinking, we begin not with a historian’s voice, but with the voice of a seventeenth-century woman.Lady Frances Culpeper Berkeley—born in England, twice widowed, and married in 1670 to Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia—speaks from the midst of crisis. Jamestown has burned. Nathaniel Bacon’s rebellion has fractured the colony’s political order. Her husband has been recalled to England to answer charges before the Crown. Lady Berkeley, left behind, attempts to make sense of loyalty, loss, honor, and exile.That voice is brought to life by my second guest, Amy Stallings, a historian and historical interpreter who believes the past is best understood not only through documents, but through embodied experience. Together, we explore Bacon’s Rebellion from an unfamiliar vantage point, the interior world of Lady Frances Berkeley, and the intellectual stakes of historical reenactment itself: what it reveals, what it risks, and what it makes newly visible.00:00 - Introduction00:28 - Lady Frances Culpeper Berkeley Introduces Herself00:58 - Writing to Her Husband in England02:55 - Sir William Berkeley's Accomplishments in Virginia04:23 - The Royal Commissioners and Personal Betrayal05:47 - Berkeley's Loyalty During the English Civil War07:17 - Berkeley's Resistance to Parliament08:15 - Berkeley's Return to Power and Jamestown's Glory09:39 - Nathaniel Bacon's Rebellion Begins11:08 - Bacon Surrounds the State House12:57 - Introducing Amy Stallings13:41 - Theater and History Intertwined14:27 - The Dissertation on Ballroom Politics21:40 - Dance as Political Resistance24:25 - English Country Dancing Before the Waltz28:53 - First Character: Susan Binks, Tobacco Bride28:53 - Learning History Through First-Person Interpretation39:14 - Developing Lady Berkeley's Character46:52 - Lady Berkeley's Isolation and Loss46:52 - Lady Berkeley's Inheritance and Legal Battles55:00 - The Challenges of Colonial Communication57:00 - Sewing Period Costumes61:51 - Conclusion

According to Chinese Communist official Xi Zhongxun, his first revolutionary act was an attempt to poison one of his school’s administrators when he was 14. He was faithful to the revolution, and the Chinese Communist Party, until his death at age 88 in 2002. In between those ages was a remarkable life. He fought Nationalists and Japanese. He was a right-hand man to both Zhou Enlai in the 1950s, and Hu Yaobang in the 1980s. As the Party administrator responsible for dealing with religious groups, he negotiated with the Dalai Lama–and would show off the wristwatch that the Dalai Lama gave him. But Xi also spent sixteen years in house arrest, internal exile, under suspicion, or at least out of power, from 1962 to 1978. “In the early 1990s, Xi even boasted to a Western historian that although Deng Xiaoping had suffered at the hands of the party on three occasions, he had been persecuted five times.” All this would make Xi Zhongxun fascinating simply as a psychological study of a Communist functionary who, despite everything, remained devoted to the system that oppressed him. But Xi Zhongxun was also the father of Xi Jinping, now effectively the dictator of China. If we are to understand the younger Xi, argues my guest Joseph Torigian, then we must understand his father.Joseph Torigian is an associate professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a center associate of the Lieberthal-Rogel Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan. He was previously on the podcast to discuss his book Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion: Elite Power Struggles in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, a conversation that was published on May 23, 2022. His latest book is The Party’s Interests Come First: The Life of Xi Zhongxun, Father of Xi Jinping was released with Stanford University Press in June 2025. It was a Financial Times Book of the Summer and an Economist Best Book of the Year So Far.00:00 — Introduction02:19 — Overview of Xi Zhongxun's Life07:15 — Early Life and Revolutionary Beginnings11:44 — Growing Up as a Peasant in Shaanxi15:02 — Path to the Communist Base Areas19:21 — The United Front Work24:10 — Work with Ethnic Minorities26:00 — The 1935 Arrest by Fellow Communists27:56 — Patronage and Party Relationships30:51 — The Northwest Bureau and China's Territorial Expansion33:43 — Personal Life and Family36:37 — The 1962 Purge41:50 — Sixteen Years of Persecution44:37 — Why Bring Him Back?46:53 — Deng Xiaoping's Distrust50:55 — Grudges and Party History52:33 — Xi Jinping and His Father's Legacy59:17 — Conclusion

The red flowered plant that shows up everywhere at this time of year–I saw a forest of them in Wegman’s this morning– is called in Mexico the cuetlaxochitl, or the noche buena; but Americans know it by as the namesake of man who introduced it to the United States: poinsettia. Yet Joel Roberts Poinsett was a more interesting organism than that plant given his name. He was a South Carolinian who spent years away from the state, and was a committed nationalist and anti-nullifier; a world traveller when few Americans were; a slaveowner who other slaveowners regarded as potentially anti-slavery; an international investor who also labored for South Carolina local improvements; a diplomat who spent years if not decades trying to find a way to be a soldier. And that’s leaving a few facets of his identity out. As my guest Lindsay Schackenbach Regele sums him up, “He was not the same, anywhere.”Lindsay Schakenbach Regele is with me to discuss Joel Poinsett, his era, and what he reveals about it. She was previously on the podcast in a conversation that dropped on April 3, 2019, which focused on her book Manufacturing Advantage: War, the State, and the Origins of American Industry, 1776–1848 (Hopkins, 2019). Her latest book is Flowers, Guns, and Money: Joel Roberts Poinsett and the Paradoxes of American Patriotism, and it is the focus of our conversation today.For more information and links, to to our Substack at www.historicallythinking.org00:00 – Introduction 00:22 – Joel Roberts Poinsett: A Complex Figure 02:47 – Early Life: A Loyalist Family's Journey05:19 – Education in New England and England 06:50 – European Travels and Grand Tour 08:56 – Mission to Latin America 11:11 – Journey Down the Volga River 13:38 – Botanical Interests and Scientific Pursuits 18:34 – Secret Agent in South America 21:41 – Supporting Independence Movements 23:38 – Return to South Carolina 25:24 – South Carolina Politics and Public Works 26:32 – First Mission to Mexico 30:02 – Masonic Lodges and Political Influence 32:43 – Mining Investments and Financial Dealings 35:57 – The Nullification Crisis 42:35 – Understanding Nullifiers vs. Anti-Nullifiers 46:15 – Secretary of War 47:44 – The Trail of Tears and Indian Removal 50:38 – The Seminole War and Bloodhounds 51:44 – Later Life: Cuba and Final Years 54:06 – Evaluating Poinsett's Legacy 57:36 – Meeting Tocqueville59:48 – Next Project: Francisco Miranda 1:02:28 – Closing

The Greek philosopher Plato is famous for writing his teachings in the form of dialogues. But there are additionally a series of seven letters attributed to Plato. Over the centuries much ink has been spilt in arguments over their authenticity. My guest today argues that these letters are actually epistolary philosophical novel which are if nothing else a “ripping great yarn”.“In the pages of Plato’s letters,” writes Ariel Helfer, “we find Plato the teacher, the counselor, the ally, the statesman; intrigue and faction in the court of a tyrant; grand political hopes dashed as famous utopian dreams become living nightmares—it is a stunningly dramatic and dynamic portrait of Plato and his philosophy.” An alll this is set in the exotic setting of Hellenized Sicily during the 5th century BC, which has a cultural and political complexity that makes the head spin uncontrollably. Ariel Helfer is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wayne State University, and the most recently editor and translator of Plato’s letters in an edition titled Plato’s Letters: The Political Challenges of the Philosophic LIfe . He was last on Historically Thinking to discuss Plato’s dialogue Alcibiades, and the broader subject of political ambition, in a conversation that was published on September 30, 2020.For show notes, resources, and our archive, go the Historically Thinking Substack ChaptersIntroduction and Background — 00:22The Authenticity Debate of Plato's Letters — 03:25Arguments for Authenticity and Unity — 11:27Textual History and Preservation — 18:36Historical Context: Plato in Syracuse — 26:19Themes in the Letters — 33:55Letter One: A Dramatic Opening — 40:51Letter Six: Philosophy, Law, and Playfulness — 47:35Philosophy vs. History: Different Perspectives — 56:24The Herculaneum Scrolls and Future Discoveries — 1:03:20

On October 16, 1843, William Rowan Hamilton was taking a walk with his wife Helen. He was on his way to preside over a meeting of the Royal Irish Academy. As Hamilton came to Broome Bridge, over the Royal Canal, the solution to a vexing problem finally emerged in front of him. He was so excited, and perhaps so afraid that he might forget, that he pulled out his penknife and carved the equation he had so suddenly conceived on the stonework of the bridge. That might not seem like such a revolutionary moment. But as my guest Robyn Arianrohd explains, Hamilton’s equation was the result of long centuries of mathematical effort. And its consequences would be immense. Because Hamilton’s thought made possible the concepts known as vectors and tensors. And vectors and tensors underlie much of modern science and technology, because they are used whenever a scientist or an engineer wants to use locations in space–everything from designing a bridge, to predicting the path of a gravitational wave; and there’s quite a lot of territory in between those two applications. That moment by the Broome Bridge ushered in a new era. Robyn Arianrohd is a mathematician, and a historian of science. Her previous books include Thomas Harriot: A Life in Science, which she and I discussed in a conversation that was published on April 30, 2019. Her latest book is Vector: A Surprising Story of Space, Time, and Mathematical Transformation. For show notes, resources, and our archive, go the Historically Thinking Substack ChaptersThomas Harriet and the Birth of Modern AlgebraNavigation, Collisions, and Early Vector ConceptsNewton's Definition of Force and DirectionAugustus De Morgan and the Formalization of AlgebraHamilton's Breakthrough: Quaternions and Four DimensionsThe Non-Commutative RevolutionJames Clerk Maxwell and Electromagnetic TheoryMaxwell's Equations and the Nature of LightThe Vector Wars: Quaternions vs. VectorsTensors: Beyond Vectors to General RelativityThe Playful Seriousness of Mathematical DiscoveryConclusion: The Journey into History of Mathematics

“Oral history is a field of study and a method of gathering, preserving, and interpreting the voices and memories of people, communities, and participants in past events.” That is the definition provided by no less an authority than the Oral History Association. And yet this brief, simple, and seemingly authoritative definition is accompanied by some ambiguity. On the one hand the Oral History Association proclaims that oral history is the oldest type of historical inquiry, stemming back to the origins of humanity itself. But on the other hand, oral history is one of the newest types of historical discipline, owing its birth to the invention of recording technology, and its rapid technological , from the introduction of magnetic tape recorders as consumer devices in 1947, to in 2025 the widespread field use of the superb digital recording studio and processor you typically refer to as your “phone”.With us to explain the basics of the discipline of Oral History is Douglas A. Boyd. He is an oral historian, archivist, folklorist, musician, author and currently Director of the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky. He is co-editor of Oral History and Digital Humanities: Voice, Access, Engagement (2014), producer of the documentary Kentucky Bourbon Tales: Distilling the Family Spirit, and author of Crawfish Bottom: Recovering a Lost Kentucky Community. But most recently he is the author of Oral History: A Very Short Introduction, which is the subject of our conversation today.For more show notes, and our full archive, go to the Historically Thinking SubstackChapters00:00:00 Introduction: Defining Oral History00:01:53 The Ambiguity and Multidisciplinary Nature of Oral History00:07:34 The Modern History of Oral History and Recording Technology00:21:07 Early Recording Technology and the Evolution of Interviews00:34:27 Oral History vs. Oral Tradition00:36:51 What Makes an Oral History Interview Different00:41:17 The First Question: Tell Me About Yourself00:47:19 Avoiding Leading Questions00:50:37 The Power of Silence and Active Listening00:54:07 The Art of Being Prepared Without Being a Know-It-All01:03:26 The Digital Archive and Preservation Challenges01:07:47 Enhancing Access and Discovery in the Digital Age01:14:16 Ethical Access and Privacy Concerns01:15:33 Practical Advice for Thanksgiving Interviews01:19:49 Getting Started: Simple Questions and Curiosity01:23:09 The Value of Multiple Sessions and Follow-Up Interviews01:25:56 Closing Remarks

“Two years and a half years ago, when coming down the Nile in a dahabiah, I stopped at . . . Tel el-Amarna. In the course of my exploration, I noticed . . . the foundations of a large building, which had just been laid bare by the natives. . . . A few months afterwards the natives, still going on with their work of disinterment, discovered among the foundations a number of clay tablets covered with characters the like of which had not previously been seen in the land of Egypt.”Those were the words of Archibald Henry Sayce, linguist, valetudinarian, and eventually first Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford. What he had noticed was the uncovering of the Amarna Letters, a set of clay tablets written in cuneiform, about which Sayce–and many others–would be intensively concerned. Finding these letters was like uncovering a file cabinet in the Pharoah of Egypt’s foreign ministry, suddenly providing a set of written sources that illuminated unknown areas of the past.With me to talk about the Amarna letter is Eric H. Cline. He is professor of classics and anthropology at George Washington University, and author most recently of Love, War, and Diplomacy: The Discovery of the Amarna Letters and the Bronze Age World They Revealed. This is his third appearance on the podcast.For this episode's show notes, and other resources, go to the Historically Thinking SubstackChapter OutlineIntroduction & Discovery of the Amarna Letters (00:00)Illicit Excavations & Context (04:45)The Translation Race (14:52)The World of the Letters: Great Kings & Diplomacy (29:00)Local Rulers & Conflicts (43:08)Social Network Analysis (51:57)Modern Relevance & Conclusion (57:41)

For at least two centuries, ideas of international relations and grand strategy have been premised on the notion of “great powers.” These were mighty states uniquely able to exert their influence through overwhelming military force. In the words of friend of the podcast Leopold von Ranke, a great power was one who could “maintain itself against all others, even when they are united”—but my guest, Phillips Payson O’Brien, argues that this definition is ahistorical nonsense.Indeed “great power” he says, has always been a tautology. Nor has it been helpful or accurate to focus who has the biggest armies. And dreaming of decisive battle has blinded us to what truly determines victory: the capacity to mobilize and sustain industrial power, logistics, technology, and global reach.In his new book War and Power: Who Wins Wars and Why, O’Brien dismantles some popular myths of military and diplomatic history and replaces them with a far more dynamic picture—one that redefines how states fight, how they win, and how we should understand power itself in the twenty-first century.For this episode's show notes, and other resources, go to the Historically Thinking SubstackChapters & Timestamps00:28 – Introduction: Challenging the Great Power Myth03:25 – The Persistence of Short War Myths08:22 – The Political Nature of Warfare14:06 – Power Rightly Understood: Economic and Technological Strength20:59 – Society, Structure, and the British-American Power Transition27:36 – Constructing and Regenerating Military Forces46:16 – The Importance of Strong Alliances39:23 – Understanding War: Beyond Battles and Single Weapons45:16 – Human Elements: Leadership, Training, and Morale49:54 – Technological Adaptation: From WWI Aircraft to Modern Drones57:30 – Applied History and the Problem of Transparency57:52 – Outro / Credits

The young King was determined to strike. His throne and power had been taken from him; now he would seize them both back. Now his chosen men entered the castle where he was a virtual prisoner, under the watchful eyes of his mother and her lover. Joining them, he led their rush to the Queen Mother’s apartments. There they seized those who had prevented Edward III from truly ruling as King of England. Those dramatic events–which occurred in Nottingham Castle, of all places–are just one of many that occur in Michael Livingston’s new book, Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Year’s War. From the origins of the great conflict between France and England, to the last bitter acts, Livingston weaves the story of how not just those two powers but all Europe was riven by a war that last not just for a hundred years, but for two full centuries of war from 1292 to 1492.Michael Livingston is Citadel Distinguished Professor at The Citadel and the author of many books on medieval military history. The former secretary-general for the US Commission on Military History, he lives in Charleston, South Carolina.For more information, see the show notes for this episode on Historically Thinking Substack page.Defining the 200 Years War: 1292 to 1492Cantering Through 200 YearsScotland: The Enemy in the RearDoctrine and the Birth of Standing ArmiesThe Forgotten Naval WarAnarchy, Free Companies, and Peasant RevoltsThe Longbow: Myth vs. RealityThe Papacy and Religious SchismThe Myth of the Decisive BattleGenerational Conflict and Modern ParallelsConclusion

During the Second World War Germany’s submarines sank over three thousand Allied ships, that figure amounting to nearly three-quarters of Allied shipping losses in all theaters of the war. What would become a war within a war began in the very first days after September 1, 1939. This war–particularly the contest which has become known as the Battle of the Atlantic–has been the focus of numerous studies and arguments. But until now, little has been said about the undersea war from the perspective of the German submariners.Roger Moorhouse has now remedied that with his new book Wolfpack: Inside Hitler’s U-boat War. It is not simply a story of the undersea war, but a history of those who fought it; who endured the miserable conditions within a German U-Boat, had only a 25% chance of survival, and when they did survive often were psychologically scarred for the remainder of their lives.Roger Moorhouse is a historian of the Second World War. The author of numerous books, his most recent was The Forgers: The Forgotten Story of the Holocaust’s Most Audacious Rescue Operation, which we discussed in a conversation of November 6, 2023. For more information, including to resources mentioned in the conversation, go to our Substack page, at www.historicallythinking.org

At the outbreak of the American Revolution, the British Empire stretched across nearly every corner of the globe. From India to the Caribbean, from Africa to Gibraltar to the Canadian provinces, Britain’s reach was vast. In 1776, the thirteen colonies that chose to rebel represented only half of the empire’s provinces. The other half—places like Quebec, Nova Scotia, Jamaica, and Bermuda—remained loyal to the Crown. But why? Why did some colonists believe their grievances justified independence, while others–who were often similarly aggrieved–chose not to revolt?To answer this, Trevor Burnard and Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy invite us to see the Revolution not just as a national story of the United States, but as part of a larger imperial crisis that spanned the globe. Britain’s challenge was to govern an array of distant, diverse territories during a period of reform and unrest. Turning our attention to colonies that stayed within the empire, we gain a more complex perspective. The Revolution was not only about republicanism, liberty, and democracy; it was also about empire, and the different ways colonial societies and elites responded to imperial governance.For show notes and other material, go to https://www.historicallythinking.org/p/republic-and-empire?r=257pn6; and subscribe to the Historically Thinking Substack at www.historicallythinking.org

In online debates, it’s almost inevitable that sooner or later someone invokes Hitler or the Nazis. That tendency, known as Godwin’s Law, has proven itself on social media thousands of times a day. But the persistence of this comparison points to something deeper than just the cheapening of argument. It reflects how much Hitler and the struggle against Nazism have become the ultimate reference point in our culture’s moral imagination.In this conversation, historian Alec Ryrie explains why we live in what he calls “the Age of Hitler.” For nearly eighty years, he argues, our moral consensus has been defined not by traditional religious frameworks but by the lessons drawn from World War II and the Holocaust. In our stories and our politics, from Star Wars to Harry Potter, the fight against Hitler continues to serve as the archetype of good versus evil. Yet Ryrie warns that this consensus is beginning to erode: both Left and Right are showing signs of moving on. What happens when Hitler no longer defines our common moral language? And what might replace it?For more resources, go to this episode's Substack page: https://www.historicallythinking.org/p/the-age-of-hitler-and-how-we-will?r=257pn6

In this episode of Historically Thinking, host Al Zambone speaks with historian Peter Fritzsche about his book "1942: When World War II Engulfed the Globe." The conversation explores how 1942 marked the transformation of regional conflicts into a truly global war, examining the unprecedented scale and movement of the conflict, the suffering and displacement of millions, and the ideological forces at play in every one of the warring powers. Key topics include the Holocaust, anti-colonial movements, industrial mobilization, and how the memory of World War II has been shaped by the specter of World War III.00:00 — Introduction: 1942 as a Pivotal Year05:16 — Movement and Kinetic Energy in 194207:54 — The Scale of World War II: Numbers Beyond Comprehension08:55 — Pearl Harbor and the Five Decisive Days12:28 — Hitler's Declaration of War on the United States15:09 — American Industrial Mobilization17:42 — Japanese Military Strategy and Pearl Harbor19:29 — Japanese American Internment22:34 — The Global Theater of War and Radio26:31 — The Fall of Singapore and Anti-Colonial Movements31:51 — Cross-Cutting Forces: India's Complex Independence Struggle33:55 — Trotzdem: Hitler's Ideology of Total War35:48 — 1942: The Year of the Holocaust39:52 — Ideological Coherence in World War II Armies43:17 — The Importance of Mail in Maintaining Morale46:11 — Richmond, California: The Second Gold Rush48:08 — The Philippines: Between Two Empires50:32 — Ukraine: Caught Between Empires53:56 — How World War III Obscured World War II

Mount Fuji is at once instantly familiar and seemingly immutable, yet it always remains strange and changeable. Its postcard-perfect peak is known around the world as a wonder of nature and a symbol of Japan. But behind that outline lies a far more complicated history.Over the centuries, Fuji’s eruptions devastated farmland and terrified villagers. Revered as a sacred presence, its divine inhabitants changed with shifts in belief and power. Once locally known, Fuji later became claimed as a national emblem, its slopes inspiring poetry, painting, and pilgrimage—and serving as the stage for political and economic disputes.In Fuji: A Mountain in the Making (Princeton, 2025), Andrew Bernstein traces this layered story from the mountain’s surprisingly recent geological beginnings to its recognition as a World Heritage Site. The result is a portrait of a place both familiar and unsettled: a mountain still in the making, continually remade by the humans who live with it, use it, revere it, and visit it.For show notes and more, go to the Historically Thinking Substack page for this episode.

We reach for the Cold War as if it were a really good pocket tool: compact, familiar, ready to deal with any problem in today’s world. U.S.–China rivalry? “Cold War 2.0.” Russia and the West? “Cold War redux.” The appeal is obvious: the Cold War offers a story we already know how to tell—great-power tension, nuclear standoff, ideological blocs, and finally, a tidy ending.But as Francis J. Gavin argues, analogies always smuggle in assumptions. To label something a “new Cold War” is to commit to a whole strategic script: decades of rivalry, fixed blocs, and an expectation of how the story ends. But what if the conditions that defined the 20th-century Cold War—its nuclear stability, its institutions, even its duration—don’t apply now? And what if these words “Cold War”that you use do not mean what I mean by the words “Cold War”?Francis J. Gavin is the Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director of the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is the author of Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age and Thinking Historically: A Guide for Policymakers.For notes, links, and a vast archive, go to www.historicallythinking.org

IntroductionEach year millions of tourists visit the Czech capital, awed by its blend of architectural styles and dramatic landscape. St. Vitus’s Gothic cathedral towers above the Charles Bridge and the Vltava River, while winding alleys lead to elegant squares lined with Renaissance palaces, Baroque statues, and modern glass structures. Yet this beauty obscures centuries of conflict — ethnic, religious, political, and more typically mundane conflicts— beginning when Prague was just a fort on a hill above a river. Presumably it wasn’t built there for the view.In her new book, Prague: The Heart of Europe, Cynthia Paces traces the city’s history from the late ninth century, when Slavic dukes built the first fortifications and church, through eleven centuries of triumph and tragedy. Prague has been both an imperial center of a great empire and a city on the periphery of empires—several of them. It became a European capital of art, politics, and pilgrimage, endured religious wars and defenestrations, and was nearly destroyed in the Thirty Years’ War. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was celebrated as a beacon of democracy, only for its citizens to endure violent antisemitism, Nazi occupation, and communist repression — before once again becoming a beacon of democracy.Through her story of Prague we come to understand the truth of Franz Kafka’s observation: “Prague does not let go; this little mother has claws.” Our conversation moves across centuries of wars, saints, emperors, rebellions, and revolutions to show why Prague still grips the imagination.About the GuestCynthia Paces is Professor of History at The College of New Jersey. She is the author of Prague Panoramas: National Memory and Sacred Space in the Twentieth Century and co-editor of 1989: The End of the Twentieth Century.For Further InvestigationCynthia Paces, Prague: The Heart of Europe (Oxford University Press, 2025)—Prague Panoramas: National Memory and Sacred Space in the Twentieth Century (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009)Chad Bryant, Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism (Harvard University Press, 2007)Derek Sayer, Prague, Capital of the Twentieth Century: A Surrealist History (Princeton University Press, 2013)Related Episodes“Edges are Interesting: A History of Eastern Europe”“City of Light, City of Darkness”“Madrid”Listen & DiscussHow does Prague’s geography help explain its importance across European history?What does the Prague Spring reveal about the continuing interplay in Prague’s history of freedom, repression, and resilience? Share the podcast with someone who has visited Prague, or who has always meant to.

It might seem obvious that the study of history ought to improve the crafting of public policy. Surely if we understand the past, we should be able to make better decisions in the present—especially in the high-stakes worlds of statecraft and strategy. But that assumption raises deeper questions: How should history be used? What history should be used? How do we gain the kind of historical knowledge that truly shapes decisions? And why is it that historians and policymakers so rarely speak the same language?In his new book Thinking Historically: A Guide to Statecraft and Strategy, my guest Francis J. Gavin argues that a genuinely historical sensibility can illuminate the complex, often confusing realities of the present. Good historical work, he writes, does not offer easy analogies or tidy morals. Instead, it captures the challenges and uncertainties faced by decision-makers, complicates our assumptions, forces us to see the familiar in new ways, and invites us to understand others on their own terms without abandoning moral judgment. Thinking historically, Gavin shows, is a discipline of discernment, curiosity, and humility—qualities as necessary in statecraft as they are in life.Francis J. Gavin is the Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and director of the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins SAIS. He is also the author of Gold, Dollars, and Power; Nuclear Weapons and American Grand Strategy; and The Taming of Scarcity and the Problems of Plenty.Go to www.historicallythinking.org for more

In 1960 Yigael Yadin, formerly chief of the Israeli general staff and by that year a prize winning archaeologist, visited the home of Israel’s president David Ben-Gurion, and said to him “Mr. President, I have the honor to tell you that we have discovered 15 dispatches written or dictated by the last president of ancient Israel over 1800 years ago.” Yadin was announcing the discovery of a collection of scrolls written by Simon Bar-Kosiba, better known as Bar-Kohkba, who had led the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, from 132 to 135 AD. Bar-Kochba was an inspiration to Israelis in the founding generation of the Republic of Israel who otherwise detested each other politically, finding in him a common source of inspiration for their own struggle. His is one of the many legacies of the series of revolts by the Jews against their Roman rulers, but not close to being the most consequential. For among the many unintended consequences of the wars of Rome against the Jews was not only the creation of the Talmud and modern Judaism, but the simultaneous growth of Christianity. With me to talk about these momentous events is Barry Strauss. He is the Corliss Page Dean Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University as well as the Bryce and Edith M. Bowmar Professor in Humanistic Studies Emeritus at Cornell University, where he was formerly Chair of the Department of History as well as Professor of History and Classics. A prolific author, his most recent book is Jews vs Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the Worlds Mightiest Empire. This is his fourth appearance on Historically Thinking. For Further InvestigationBarry Strauss' most recent appearance on the podcast was to discuss "The War That Made the Roman Empire". He also contributed