I'm writing a story and this could be useful. Also I'd like to know just for fun.

[deleted]

Asking for authenticity purposes about a reenactment role. Unsure whether this would be feasible in a post-1066 setting.

I was wondering if anyone here could answer a difficult (and possibly undeterminable) question.

It seems like European nations under feudalism were often split up and governed in complicated ways; for example, the duchy of Burgundy in what's now France is shown as an independent area on a lot of maps of the 15th century.

My question is this: how did ethnicity work in 15th century France? I.e., would your average farmers in the duchy of Burgundy consider themselves Francais, Burgundian, Roman, or none of these? Did they even have an ethnicity in the way we typically think of it in the modern day?

From what I've gathered, while many natives of the Italian peninsula considered themselves Italians in the way Canadians might consider themselves North American, their ethnic identity was more linked to their region (i.e., Florentine or Parmesan or Tuscan).

Does this go for the people living in different areas of France too, or what?

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Grammar

Between 1772 and 1795, Prussia annexed Polish territory alongside Russia and Austria, eventually wiping the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth off the map.

From that time, what was Prussian (later German after 1871) policy towards their ethnically Polish citizens?

Let me explain his point a little.

According to him, cheese was revolutionary in that it was the first nutritious food humans could make which is consumable long after its creation, and, with some basic provisions to prevent mold, could be stored for the future. Thus, according to him, it was one of the most important founding blocs in starting human civilization - it allowed humans to make long journeys without the need of spending energy on hunting or gathering (as they would be able to just eat cheese they took with them) and thus enabled trade, exchange of ideas, etc.; and since it could be stored and gathered, it would allow humans to safely begin agriculture without immediately becoming reliant on food which can only be harvested once a year.

How correct is he in this analysis on early human societies, or is he operating on false information?

I've just got back from a trip to Dublin where I tried to learn as much of the history regarding Home Rule, and the formation of an Irish Republic as possible, as it is a subject utterly overlooked in English secondary school education, despite our obvious connections with the aforementioned subjects.

While I was in Dublin a recurring theme of what was told to me was that the Easter Rising was viewed as a disaster (at least in the short term), many people needlessly died, nothing was achieved, the possibility of the Irish simply being granted Home Rule after WW1 anyway was now off the table, and a large part of Dublin was destroyed, all over a cause few were sympathetic to to begin with. As I was told, the execution of the leaders of the Easter Rising by the British caused a phenomenal shift in public opinion. Where before the Rising and those behind it had been execrated by the Irish, their execution spawned a complete renege of previously held opinions, and a move towards strong semi-revolutionary Republicanist sentiment in the country.

The crux of my question is: is the execution of the leaders of the Rising overstated as a turning point in the road towards Home Rule and the eventual formation of an Irish Republic? Or, would have history actually played out largely the same had their lives been spared, or some other fate befallen the leaders? Finally, did this really get a lot of previously non-political members of society to sympathise with efforts towards Home Rule, or is this simply an obvious flash point to draw attention to, that did not really significantly change the views of people at the time - as I said previously, would things basically have played out the same anyway regardless of the executions?

Whilst eating popcorn during a movie visit recently, I wondered whether we know what people would snack on during entertainment in the past?

Any historical periods are interesting, any information appreciated.

Copper deposits are often pretty localised and tin is even more so - to the extent that in the Bronze Age, Cyprus was a major copper producer and built at least some of its wealth and power on that, while Cornwall was a large tin producer whose exports reached far across Europe. Making bronze then requires having both ample copper and sufficient tin, and the knowledge that alloying these together will produce a metal distinctly tougher than copper.

In contrast, iron deposits are pretty widely spread around the world, and making iron involves extracting it from ore with no additional alloying. While obviously this isn't a trivial step, to my uneducated eye it doesn't seem so much harder or, more pertinantly, more expensive than sourcing extracting copper and tin from widely-separated locations, shipping them across large distances, and combining them into bronze.

And yet by my understanding, in pretty much all cultures that worked metal we passed through a bronze age before iron working became widespread.

Why is this? Is it not so much a function of cost and inconvenience as that the temperatures required to extract iron from ore were so high that it took millennia of technological development of forges during the bronze ages before the iron could be smelted?

(Or were there in fact some (or even a majority) of cultures in which iron was worked, but not in volumes as large as bronze? This seems to be somewhat unlikely, but if it does happen to have some truth to it, why would more bronze be made than iron if people could already make iron?)

I imagine whales are a problem. A rare one though.

I am not quite sure if I am wording it correctly. I am looking for historical descriptions of the fauna and flora habitats of the Southeast. Specifically pre-colonization to settlement. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I was wondering, all of the history books I've read have been mostly the allies perspective fighting the Germans and they hate the Germans so obviously the books reflect that and put the Germans in a bad light, but are there any German books about the war?

[deleted]