In the 1918 Irish general election, there were pretty clear trends of Unionist support concentrated in the north east of the country, which went on to become Northern Ireland, but there were plenty of pockets of Unionism elsewhere, including in Donegal and Dublin. Dublin actually elected Unionist MPs, but that was the university constituency, so I'm not sure how much it counts as actually "Dublin".

I am vaguely aware that Orange marches persist in Donegal to this day, and that there are a few Orange Lodges dotted around the country. How many left the country? How many stuck it out and got used to the new realities? How many were actually chased out by politically motivated vandalism and harassment?

I mean why not just tar them? What aspect did the feathers add?

In other words, before the Zhou and the Qin unified most of the region, were the people in South China or near the tibetan plateau of different culture ?

I wanted to read history based research papers to broaden my knowledge and more in-depth. But I am worried that if I choose some journal which might be biased and not having well credibility. So, if anyone can help finding more unbiased and interesting journals with thought provoking papers. It would be great help!

Or just types of outdoor ride-like entertainment, such as something resembling water slides, slippery dips, rope swings, or anything else built solely for physical thrills.

I recently found out I'm one quarter Ashkenazi Jewish, and I'm interested in what that means historically. Obviously I understand this question has a serious political controversy attached, but I'm just interested in the history of the people.

I’m currently studying Ancient Greece, and I am looking at the reliability / bias of different historians that provide sources for the time. I’m finding it easy to obtain information on Thucydides, Herodotus, Diodorus etc. BUT I can’t find much on how reliable Aristotle was as a historian. I know he was not primarily a historian, but he has written a few passages that are useful from a historical perspective. Anyone know anything about this?

Carl Reiner, who passed away in June, was a Second World War veteran who served in the U.S. Army’s Special Service entertainment unit. During the war, it seems the United States expended considerable resources on providing troops with entertainment. Did German, Japan, and the USSR similarly provide entertainment to their troops?

I am Portuguese, born in Angola and today in the forenoon I had an argument with a White South African nationalist/jingo who told me this:

ANC propaganda. How do you steal land from someone who isn’t there? The whites started farming to provision Dutch East Indies Company vessels. It would have been much cheaper to buy produce from locals - only there weren’t any. The whites first met indigenous inhabitants a long way north of the Cape. The documents still in existence in Holland prove it. The authors of those documents had no reason to falsify anything. They did not, after all, know that eventually the place would be governed by incompetent corrupt politicians out, as far any outsider can tell, for a quick buck.

What do you think, is he correct?

In science we use -pithecus (from πίθηκος) to denote “ape”. Seeing as the homelands of anything we’d call an ape today are quite far from Greece, I’m wondering if there is evidence that Greeks ever came into contact with apes as opposed to monkeys in the ancient world, or did we retroactively decide that pithikos should mean “ape” later on.

As an aside, there is at least one genus of monkeys (theropithecus) that has the -pithecus root. Did we use this stem before making the differentiation between apes and monkeys in modern science?

I did a bit of searching but came across some very outlandish answers (like extraterrestrials mixing human and animal DNA and the Greeks calling them apes...)

Would he have been given a fair trial, and if yes, would his execution have been public?

Not sure whether it's the right subreddit but I try.

I like reading history of places on wikipedia from time to time and I noticed that generally history on China is very surface level.

For example, when I wikipedia some semi-big cities in Europe, I usually get a quite in depth description of it. Maybe it is some sort of confirmation bias, but that does not seem to be the case with China.

For example Guangzhou. If I understand correctly, it was quite the important city throughout Chinese history, yet when reading their wikipedia it feels like it is equal to some unimportant European city, if one compares the content.

Is Wikipedia simply biased towards Europe or do we really simply have less information on the details of China?

If it is the second, is it because China was relatively peaceful in the grand scheme of things compared to Europe? For example, various regions in Europe had internal fights for power and when there emerged a regional hegemon, they still had to compete with other European regions. Thus in a way there was much more to write about. Or does this view overly simplify China?

Like let’s say out in west Texas, your county only had one black family. Were they given an education? Did they have to go to school in a larger town? Or was home education considered good enough?

arguing with someone about lesser knights and I was wondering would a knight raid the territory of another knight outside of warfare (note by raid I don't mean burning down villages I mean more petty stuff like attacking farms or stealing livestock or grain)

If the purpose of many of Germany's concentration camps, especially near the end of the war was to kill as quickly as possible, why did they bother taking mugshots of the prisoners? Was this practice only adhered to in work camps, or also in the annihilation camps, and did the camp administrators slack off on documenting all of the new prisoners as it became more apparent that Germany could not win the war?

Only Truman served in combat and Eisenhower was stateside during ww1. It just seems to have jumped generations very quickly. In comparison Kennedy to HW served, although Johnson and Reagans service was not combat. Is there any historical reason for this? Roosevelt taking up 13 years for example? Different sentiment towards military service in the interwar period?

We are also likely to not have any vietnam combat veterans serve as president if anyone wants to touch on that

In the '90s, it seemed like video games were everywhere, and almost every single game was exclusive to one console or company. What are the factors that led to such fierce competition, aggressive placement in stores, fierce console loyalty, etc?

And to what extent did people begin to identify more clearly with written history in the West as opposed to the stories told by those around them? I realize this is probably a really broad question that is difficult to answer, but seeing this week's theme brought up an old question/epiphany that I had where it seemed that legend, collective memory, and myth all probably contributed to a people's understanding of themselves and their world. That has largely been replaced by history, which is a lot more rigorous. I suppose you could point to the father of history, Herodotus, but clearly the European west continued to rely heavily on myth making and legend to tell their "own story" so to speak. Was there a specific event, book, person, happening that helped to push our understanding of history from a legendary perspective to a more academic one?

edit: to add a little on, and keeping within an understanding of no questions about events within the last 20 years... In a historian's opinion, how important is legend and collective memory to the development of, say, America's identity in the modern era? I'd say a great deal of modern US historical understanding is based on a legendary memory of our early history, for example.

I've been watching The Last Kingdom and (overlooking the fictional nature of it). The protagonist Utred pays 11 silver to have a decent sword forged. It's difficult even from watching the show to understand the modern equivalent of this value. So my question is two parts, what is the modern equivocation in Winchester England around 878 AD of 11 silver pieces? And is that a reasonable price to pay for a professionally forged sword? Thanks!

I’m puzzled by the myriad of references to various figures like Octavian (Octavius? Octavianus???) Aurelian or Domitian, who seem to possess Latin names distinct in structure from the names to which they are similar.