I understand that “Celtic” is a broad and ambiguous term, but here I am speaking of languages commonly classed as Celtic specifically. Was there a common term with descendants across many different Celtic languages to denote the lands north of the Mediterranean Sea before the Roman conquest?

Did the “Celts” even have a notion of these lands separate from the rest of the world? Or even a concept akin to a “continent” that was common to many of their languages? Or did this idea not arrive until the Roman conquests?

Novels and plays can reflect the period in which they were written, but it also seems like they would be less reliable than academic works, even if neither is completely objective. So I'd like to ask the researchers of the subreddit if there is a serious use in academia of fictional works to support a point, as the author would use essays or other non-fictional sources.

Why did the usage of pikes decline with the Hellenistic kingdoms, then had a revival during high renaissance/Baroque period? What made this weapon useful and useless depending on the era?

How would this have effected the spheres queens were supposed to lead or participate in?

Sadly I got no answer last time

The situation seems comparable to the Roman and the barbarians; would the native inhabitants have agreed? Was there a difference between Islamic and Christian perspectives, or were they regarded as outside invaders by both groups?

I know he was retried, subsequently found guilty, and hanged. Is there any reasoning for him being found innocent originally especially with witnesses and what seems like a clear-cut case?

Hello. If this isn't an appropriate sub to ask this I sincerely apologize and would love direction to another sub to be answered.

I was talking to my grandmother about vaccinations for my 6 week old, just bsing, when she told me this anecdote: Every Friday, at school, the children would line up and be given a sugar cube with a pill in it. Then, they would go to another line and be given a shot in the arm. No parents were ever asked permission and they never told the children what they were doing to them. Literally, it was never questioned. This would be in the early to mid sixties.

I assumed the government was just doing human experiments on poor, rural kids in Texas most of which had non English speaking families (only kind of kidding) and then my Pawpaw mentioned they did the same thing in Puerto Rico around the same time. My family is very curious as to what my grandparents had been given and Google didn't really give me an answer so I thought I'd ask you, good people of Reddit. Thanks, ya'll!

How long was her choosing a number that followed an “England only” queen? How long did the reaction if any last?

A little context:

​

My grandmother speaks Old Low Franconian Limburgish as her main language and both "Germany" and "Prussia" have their own names in the dialect, "Duutsjland" en "Pruusses". I've only recently noticed she still refers to Germany as "Pruusses", as do a lot of other older people I know. The reason why I thought it was relatively strange is because not all seniors who speak the dialect refer to the country as "Prussia". A large portion of people just call it "Duutsjland" (Germany) and refer to the people as "Duutsjers" (Germans). It may not be entirely in the subject of "history", but I'm not quite sure where else to ask this question.

Edit: I usually use Low Franconian as a blanket term for the collection of dialects, but it's Limburgish to be more specific as u/Taalnazi pointed out.

I have been watching the Sharpe and Hornblower series's recently and noticed a stark difference between how duelling was treated, in the Army, it was banned by Wellington and if you duelled you would be court-martialed, (Which I believe is how Wellington actually handled it).

However, in Hornblower, I noticed that more duels were issued, and it seemed like a common way to deal with arguments. Warnings only being "you may die".

Did the Navy have rules regarding duelling or was it still considered illegal?

The plot of the 1975 Kubrick film Barry Lyndon, a period drama set in the 18th century around the time of the Seven Years War, is bookmarked by three pivotal shooting duels. The first two, taking place in Ireland, have the two duelists take their places and fire at each other simultaneously.

The final duel that takes place in England, however, features a different procedure: instead of firing simultaneously at the count of three, the duelists take turns firing at each other, with their appointed seconds asking the person whose turn it was to receive fire to vocally confirm that they were ready before their rival would shoot. In the film, this leads to a very long and dramatically drawn out scene.

Does this distinction reflect an actual difference in dueling norms between Ireland and England in the 18th century, or is it merely a device to provide more dramatic scenes for the film? In case it's relevant, all duelists in the film are nobles or landed gentry. Additionally, the movie is based on a book published in the UK in 1844 titled The Luck of Barry Lyndon. I haven't read the book and can't give specifics about it, but it appears from looking at the Wikipedia plot synopsis that the final duel of the movie Barry Lyndon is not part of the book's plot.

Edit: One additional thing that I forgot to mention is that the first duel takes place sometime in the 1750s, the second around 1760, and the third in 1787 or so.

Or did they and it is just not mentioned? If so why?

Fairly often, you’ll see an iron cross used as a logo for clothing companies, motorcycle clubs, etc. Just wondering why it isn’t strictly used for Nazi-stuff like the swastika is.

Any reason behind this trend? What started it? What ended it? Was it due to a different sense of humor about life then? Would the names have sounded equally epic back then, or was this sort of thing relatively normal?

Became very interested in this topic after a recent trip to Prague.

Please provide sources so I can read more. Thank you.

I've always wondered what exactly the difference is between "shock" cavalry and other type of cavalry. In Total War games, one basically does more "morale damage" than the other, but that makes me wonder: why would it be different from one horse colliding into you compared to another horse colliding into you? What exactly separates a regiment of "shock" cavalry vs. "heavy" cavalry vs. melee cavalry. It seems to me like there are really only differently armoured melee and ranged cavalry types. Is there really such a big difference between how much "shock" one unit of cavalry can do vs. another when basically they're both doing the same charge into a group of people?

How much more "shock" can shock cavalry do compared to non-shock cavalry in real life?

A common response is to just say "it's the British's fault" and be done with it, but that doesn't explain why it remained in place for so long. Hinudism (which is, admittedly, not just one thing) has scriptural references to homosexuality and ancient forms seem to have been very sex-positive.

Also, what is my typical career path and advancement options? Other than NASA, where might I work? How does society view my job? How does getting pregnant/having children affect my career?