I've been rereading Anne of Green Gables, and one of the small-town peccadilloes that keep coming up is clannishness as far as political affiliation, whether Liberal or Conservative (Grit or Tory). However, in keeping with the fact that, as with so many small town things in the books, one's politics were not so much linked to actual values as to who one's grandfather voted for, I really can't get a handle on what it actually MEANT to support one of the two parties. So,

1. What exactly was the difference between the Grits and the Tories?
2. Did it say anything about a person which one they voted for (much as today people would make assumptions about a person based on the person's party)? I can't figure out any sort of correlation between the characters and the parties they vote for, which would actually fit in with the way it's depicted in the books, but it's still worth asking.
3. Did the meaning/difference change over the course of the 40 years over which the books take place (1870s-1910s)?
4. What issues would small town farmers/fishermen in the Maritimes in this time period care about in Canadian politics, and how would that manifest itself in their political parties?
5. Is the clannishness which Montgomery depicts actually accurate? Would people generally vote for/align themselves with an ancestral political party, or would they change based on the issues?

Thank you!

I am specifically referencing the old gods that we think of in movies or video games, such as: Ra, Osiris, Isis, Set, etc. that were worshiped in the time of the pharaohs and ancient Egypt. I'm aware of pre-Christian folk traditions lasting far beyond the Christianization of Scandinavia (especially Norway, Sweden, and their Nordic brother Finland) albeit with a Christian bent, as well as claims that small enclaves of communities with pagan beliefs stretched into the Napoleonic Era. I was wondering if there are any similar cases for Egypt?

So I know that European colonizers brought diseases like smallpox and cholera to the Americas, and that these diseases killed a lot of native people because they'd never been exposed to them before. But did that ever work the other way around (where natives had immunity to a disease that the colonizers didn't, and contact made the colonizers sick)? If not, how come Europe had so many contagious diseases while the Americas didn't?

Thank you!

There's that (probably apocryphal) story about a Swiss militiaman who, upon being asked what the 500,000 Swiss soldiers would do if a million Germans invaded, answered 'shoot twice and go home'. I've always wondered why pre-gunpowder armies didn't do something similar.

Mathematically, it makes sense - if you have 5,000 soldiers and the enemy has 10,000, why not equip every soldier with a bow and shoot down the enemy army before contact? And if you outnumber the enemy, so much the better - more arrows for fewer targets! I'm thinking primarily of foot archers - I know mass horse archer armies have been common to parts of the world. I'm wondering why Harold's whole army at Hastings didn't fire a few arrows and head home, or why Alexander didn't conquer the world with tens of thousands of fast-firing archers instead of unwieldy phalanxes.

Economically it makes a sort of sense too - surely a weapon which is mainly wood was far cheaper and easier to produce than kitting someone out with a metal sword and a big wood and metal shield? And issuing bows surely does not prevent a soldier from putting the bow away and drawing a close combat weapon anyway - I'm picturing the painted image of the Immortals with their spears in their hands and bows on their backs.

As for why I think armies didn't depend on the bow, I would suggest bows are less effective than I'm giving them credit for. Perhaps the English longbow could whittle down a closing army, but most bows were smaller and weaker, or shields were bigger or armour thicker or horses faster, to make a difference before contact. Perhaps other projectile weapons like the pilum served the same purpose without the need for extensive training in two disciplines. And presumably bows and arrows are largely useless anywhere but open battlefields - no using them in cities or forests.

TL;DR - if you have thousands of guys, they could fire tens of thousands of arrows, and that seems like it would deal with most problems.

Recently a coworker told me about the Revolt of 1907, and how most of the land was owned by the jews and they created miserable conditions for the peasants which made them revolt. I looked it up and found mixed answers, a lot of sources saying that it was not true, and jews owned 40% of the land in Moldova, and barely anything in other parts, so both the jew and romanian landowners may have created horrible conditions. Was there a bias against jewish landowners because of antisemitism?

Thank you.

Henry Tudor's claim to the English throne is famously weak, and was obviously opposed by the House of York, but was there any opposition to him from Lancastrians? And more specifically, as it seems to me the Lancastrian claim should have passed to Philippa of Lancaster's descendants, was there any push for a member of the Portuguese royal House de Avis to take the English throne?

I'm preparing a short lecture on folklore and how I perceive its importance as a tool to create a feeling of being at home or at place in a region. I'd love to back it up with some scientific work, but I'm having a hard time finding anything relevant. Can anyone give me some pointers?

I also posted on r/history, but figured I'd try it here as well. Thanks in advance for any help!

I have heard of the beginning of animal domestication in the Neolithic Revolution. I am wondering when dogs became more of a companion than an animal to help humans survive.

Is there a recorded first occurrence of this?

To what extent did medieval warfare rely on money in the first place, as opposed to obligation for unpaid service by the soldiers? What role did credit play in funding war?

[deleted]

The Soviet Union made great use of both its secret police and and its intelligence agencies during its history. However, I am curious to know - where did these organisations originate? The USSR was established from the remains of the Russian Empire, which obviously had its own intelligence and secret police, but where did the Soviets gather the personnel and expertise to run their own organisations? Did they just pick up ex-Tsarist spies and policemen looking for a job? Did they base it on their own pre-revolutionary experience when the Bolshevik party was underground (I know the Party was the only solid institution they could rely on since the Tsarist institutions had collapsed)? Did they just have to learn on the job during those early chaotic years?

Thank you in advance for answering my question!

How did commoners and nobles manage their waste? Where there any differences in how they managed their waste?

In most sources I've read, they attribute a desire to restore the republic to his murderers. in one book i read, however, the author theorized that it was in fact because they feared that, after naming himself Emperor, Ceaser planned on taking Cleopatra as his queen and moving the capital to Alexandria, which, at that time, was a far greater city than Rome was. how much proof is there to support that theory?

Many people, including myself, are first introduced to this story via Shakespeare's play though I have always assumed he certainly must have been taking some liberties with regards to the feats of Henry's army, or even Henry's leadership - the famous "once more into the breach!" speech or the speech immediately prior to the Battle of Agincourt come to mind right away. So what actual historical truths do we know about the battle? Are their any agreed upon records or accounts that speak to the number of soldiers on each side? Did Henry's archers really have that big an impact on the French cavalry? Is there a line we can draw between the "national myth" version of the story and any medieval records?

What would a typical day consist of for the average citizen of the Soviet Union? Were they assigned jobs and if so, how? If not, how did they apply and what was the hiring process like? How did wages and in general, money work? I heard that in WW2 deserters were threatened with their families being denied state assistance and this was tantamount to starvation. What form did this state assistance take? Purely money or with goods? How would they get food and other goods and how was that determined? If you wanted to move to a new town or city, what all did you have to do and who did you have to talk to in order to ensure housing and a job when you got there? What was the banking system like or it's alternative? Say you wanted to read a book, how and where did you get them? Libraries only or were there bookstores? What about electronics and other luxuries like cars? Religion was suppressed however there were still bishops and churches, were people discouraged from going to them, banned, or could you attend services openly? What kind of internal culture was there i.e. in the 60s the Beatles were huge, was there any kind of equivalent fads or trends? Inside jokes?

I apologize for how broad the topic is, I'm writing a book where a nation is not so subtly modelled after the Soviet Union and I realized I may know quite a bit about the Marxist theory, foreign policy, political workings, human rights violations etc, I didn't really know much about the average persons life inside such a system. Any books or other resources on the topic would be much appreciated.

Hi, I’m working on a graphic novel set in modern, but with strong empirical allusions.

Do we know the color shades used to represent the greens and blues?

Did each team have a personality or associated style of play expected by fans?

(I’m a scientist with a strong drive to get the details right)