I'm currently writing a play about an American Civil War vet (Union) who comes over to Ireland on the cusp of the Fenian Rising. My question is, what currency would they use to pay for things (a room, food, etc.)? Would greenbacks be accepted? What about coins? Would the "exchange rate" be favorable for American currency or not?

Also what about Canadian coin? The idea is the character took part in the Fenian Raids in Canada, and would possibly have picked up Canadian currency too.

Any guidance would be helpful. Thanks!

Whitechapel was, to put it mildly, not a very pleasant place and the canonical five victims of Jack the Ripper were all sex workers and the sort of people that, sadly even today, are generally seen as disposable by society at large. So I'm wondering - when did London begin to actually 'care' about the murders? Like when did it go from 'some tart in the ghetto got herself killed, I suppose we ought to look into it.' to 'holy crap there is a serious problem and we need to do something about it ASAP!'
I believe I recall there having been riots after the second murder. Was that it - was it the murder of Annie Chapman and/or the Dear Boss letter that followed that made the public at large begin to care about the murders? Or was there an almost immediate reaction with the sheer brutality and bizarre nature of poor Polly Nichols' murder that brought attention that the death of a sex worker in Whitechapel otherwise would not have brought?

Like, basically, when and why did the Whitechapel Murders become a big deal?

Given that the UK had vested interest in the retention of contested sea territory and far greater geopolitical influence? How did the public take the news if this loss? Was it a major issue?

I'm not a historian by any standard but I do know quite a bit about blackpowder firearms and im looking for something with a lot of substance and detail, mostly about the emergence of firearms technology but to be honest I'm just looking for anything pertaining to it as the subject seems to be dry as a bone compared to say the history of cavalry or siege weapons.

If you look the Wikipedia page of most early Roman Emperors (or even Google search them), they all have busts and statues of said emperor. My question is, how can we be so sure we are correctly identifying said statues? How do we know, for example, that the bust that we think belongs to Marcus Aurelius (or any other emperor), doesn't actually belong to some other emperor? Were the statues named?

I'm a total noob on the mead world and it have been really hard for me to find a good source about the history of mead and it's role on the Viking society, some says that it was a drink only for the kings, some say that it was like our beer is for us, so I really don't know who is right... Any help leading me to the right direction would be really appreciated.

Ive always thought of the bible as strictly stories passing on metaphors, like fairy tales or parables. It was even written and edited for years just like grimms took oral folklore and put it to written word. Some people claim jesus was real, but is there any basis to this? I’m not religious but I understand the moral value of a book of wise parables that can be passed down in story, like mythology even. I dont understand trying to make it literal about real people when it seems like wise metaphors.

It is my understanding that American soldiers were allowed to purchase their service weapons after they were discharged from their military service, particularly through the earlier half of the 20th Century. My question is, under legal segregation and the historical mistreatment of American soldiers of color, were they permitted to same buy-back rights as their white counterparts? Was there ever anything in writing that expressly forbade the practice, or perhaps a more “de-facto” approach to this? This is my first community-post, so I appreciate everyone’s patience and consideration.

So, in the Spanish conquest, the tlaxcalans had played an enormous role as allies of the Spanish, but in the end Tenochtitlan remained the seat of government for most of mesoamerica, and today tlaxcala is one of the poorer states in Mexico. So I'm curious why their role in the conquest didn't end up leading to them having a particularly raised profile after the conquest.

Hello all, So when a roman century clashed against opponent, i understand the centurion was yelling encouragements and orders to his troops. They are fighting in a tight formation so where do he stand. I've seen reenactments where he was just a bit away from the formation, like napoleon era officiers commanding a shooting line, but wouldn't he be an easy target for javelins and throws? And what about his standard's bearers?

I know it probably depends on the book, but I mean generally. I'm interested in some books by James Henry Breasted and Will Durant.

I'm okay if only some minor details are wrong on inaccurate. I usually reread the parts I have highlighted and research them online anyway. I just find older works much more entertaining than contemporary ones.

As an European (Italy) I never understood why Hindenburg is so present in mass culture in America.

In many films, TV series and even in non-traditional media contents I have always noticed the presence of scenes or references to the airship and the disaster connected to it, when in fact it was a fairly forgettable event, a tragedy certainly but not different from others to which less relevance is apparently given in usa mass culture.

I'm probably missing something but I really can't find a justification

I also wonder about other biblical names that are so common today. Did they become common due to the Bible or was a name like Paul or Peter (or their Hebrew equivalents) just as common before?

I am not an expert on Ciceros life, but from what I've seen there were better politicians in rome (even at that time) who were (in my opinion) smarter and more skilled. He was a brilliant guy but there were better politicians, some of them even outsmarting him. (He wasnt that honorable either). So I am genuinely interested in why he is so popular.

Most demonstrations of old printing presses are of one person hand operating a single press - painstakingly arranging type, inking, rolling, pressing and then drying one measly document. One could imagine this working well for a weekly flyer or newspaper, but how did this process scale up logistically to produce many copies of many books? If a book was 200 pages long, was page 1 set and pressed thousands of times, then page 2, and so on? Or did publishing houses have many people operating many Gutenberg style presses? Could larger presses press many pages at once? All options are still better than transcribing, I suppose!