[deleted]

Hi all,

After taking a course about British foreign policy, I've become particularly interested in the subject of the Conflict in Northern Ireland (The Troubles). I was hoping to find some suggestions for further reading about this topic if possible. A comprehensive history, from the dynamics that precipitated the conflict up until its resolution, so to speak, would be preferred. Anything which covers from the late 1960s through 1998 or so, though, would also work.

I greatly appreciate any book suggestions you might have!

​

Edited for clarity

​

Do we know what we are missing?

Do we have any aural rumors of the works lost in Alexandria?

​

For instance, is it possible that another potential work of the bard Homer may have potentially slipped through the cracks?

or even authorships by other names that were potentially his equal?

​

​

​

[deleted]

European architecture from different periods in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century seem dramatically different. The look of buildings from the mid-1800's are very different than those from the mid-1900's. I get that building materials and production changed but there were shifts around aesthetic and design. Why is, though, ancient (as it were) Greek buildings have a relatively consistent look regardless of the age of the building?

I've often heard people would be killed for refusing to take part in mass killings and the like, but I've also read a fair few books that mention there generally few consequences for this, since it was treated differently to general insubordination.

Argentina is mostly White, same with Uruguay. But in Brazil, slavery was cruel and lasted a long time. And most of the population is black/mestiço. So many africans were brought to Brazil by The Portuguese colonizers... . So, why didn't the Spanish brought as much slaves to their colonies as Portugal did?

Edit: Screwed up title, mean to say "the average age of marriage"

I'm interested because a redditor elsewhere had claimed that

Men were expected to be in a gay relationship until they were about 30. Then they would marry a woman, get children and when the children were grown up they would be in a gay relationship again.

I have little to no knowledge of this topic, but this set of claims intuitively strike me as strange.

1. If society expected Roman men to marry at around 30, it seems strange for the consent ages to be so low. It also seems a pretty high age for the ancient world, I thought historically people generally married quite young. 30 seems old even now. And then there are all the famous Romans that come to mind who married young.

2. I know that pederasty was romanticized in (post)Hellenic Greece, but I don't know about Rome. I know that there were, depending on the time, strong socially conservative voices in Rome. It also seems a bit strange given the general impression of Rome vs. Greece that men would be expected to enter into a "gay" relationship, not merely that it was either socially approved/acknowledged/accepted- but that it was expected.

I'd also be quite curious to know how historians know about the practice of marriage and sexual attitudes of the common person in Rome (I imagine graffiti might be helpful?), and whether any of what the original redditor said was true in specific periods of Rome's history.

Considering Andrew Roberts "Churchill: Walking With Destiny" but if there are others, not just biography but general books that would be good choices - thanks in advance.

Natalya Geese is an oft cited source for the "Soviet soldiers raped women from ages 8 to 80" quote that circulates around the internet. Whether or not that claim is accurate isn't what I'm here to ask about though. I'm more curious as to whether or not the supposed Soviet war correspondent actually existed.

I've done some light digging and found nothing else about her in English. She's cited by Beevor (and a bunch of creepy white supremacist websites,) but that's it. Is there anything else attributed to her? Or any evidence that she existed beyond Beevor's quote?

I’ve seen plenty of online debate on Native American reactions and tactics to European invasion, with both sides cherrypicking examples of “peaceful Natives” or “warlike savages”. This question is not asking about how Native American tribes acted; I understand there is are hundreds if not thousands of culturally diverse tribes and it’d be impossible to meaningfully group responses. Rather, are there patterns or “phases” of Native American tactics? From my broad and obviously thin understanding of history, it seems that initially tribes were a force to be reckoned with, from the Iroquois Confederacy to Tecumseh’s alliance being major opponents to the U.S. military, but eventually tribes started becoming more of a pushover for white settlers and soldiers, although conflicts became increasingly violent and on the white part genocidal. Was there an evolving understanding of the U.S. from tribal perspectives? Did survivors of Tecumseh’s alliance and the Trail of Tears warn of the futility of resisting the U.S. military, encouraging tribal leaders to more readily resort to diplomacy? Did survivors of Great Plains tribes warn of trusting U.S. treaties as anything more than shams, encouraging total war like with the Apaches? Or was the U.S. simply too large and diverse for information to reach tribes before American guns did?

Hello friends,

​

I'm working on a personal project - an illustration of the warriors who participated in the Second Punic War.

My natural source of information is books of Livy and Polybios.

However, I can not learn everything from them and I would like to be as faithful as possible to the historical realities.

​

Right now I am painting Publius Cornelius Scipio in the consul armor.

I do not know which colors I can use.

For his tunic, I obviously chose white with red rim.

I do not know if the consuls' coat was white or red? (or other color?)

​

Could somebody please provide me with a brief description of the colors that the consuls in the third century BC had worn?

​

Thank you in advance. Other things I would like to discuss in the comments.

​

I am very curious on how this affected the lives of people living in Turkey at the time. It seems like such a drastic change, having to learn a completely new alphabet and pronunciations. I remember reading how when the Soviets changed the alphabet in 1918 and removed letters such as ъ, it caused widespread protests and was strongly opposed by Russians. This was after dropping a few letters, so how did the Turks react to the change to a basically new language, and manage to successfully implement it into the country?

If other heard this used as an explanation for the difference in development when comparing the US and Canada Vs Latin American nations.

How accurate is this?

Specifically, a relative was discussing how money was sent over from America and then invested in property. The property was leased out to other farmers. Then World War II happened and America came in and made a rule banning leased farmland. Apparently his relatives had to make a decision between giving it up to their tenants or farming it themselves. There was also an uncle who went to America, and since he was there, his land could not be touched. Any truth to any of these family stories?