Anytime African American slaves are mentioned, someone always chimes in and says "well there were Irish slaves too". I am curious as to what the reality was of these Irish American slaves. Were they slaves in the traditional sense of the word, or were they more of an indentured servant? Also what are the numbers of Irish compared to African slaves?

I recently saw a comment on /r/politics that claimed that early Marxist organizations in the United States helped influence the Republican Party's decision to to elect Abraham Lincoln, something the poster links to an argument made Philip Sheldon Foner. How true is this?

Right now I'm reading Peter Burke's book What is Cultural History? for a graduate seminar on historiography, and at several times throughout the work, he puts cultural history at odds with social history (as well as economic, political, military, etc.), but he never really clarifies how the two fields are separate entities, if indeed they are (although it seems implicit in Burke's analysis). Is there a noticeable difference in the focus of historians of those two fields?

In the West the birth of Christ marks the beginning of the "AD period". Anything before that falls under "BC". Whilst the Hijrah calendar started when Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina.

Now say if Islamic scholars or historians narrated the life of Jesus or Muhammad's life prior to his migration in detail, how would they date certain events such as their birth by using the Islamic/Hijrah calendar?

I'm completley aware that the Gregorian calendar and the Islamic calendar do not correspond with eachother since the former is a solar calendar, and the latter is a lunar calendar. So that means that Ramadhan may fall on the (Gregorian) summer, fall, spring, or winter seasons.

In case you're wondering why I'm not asking this in r/islam, it's because of their strict flair rule that won't let me post.

I understand that US infantry was highly segregated in the Second World War, but how were armored divisions segregated? I assume individual tank crews were all one race, would a division be mixed race?

I mean the "lampshade on the head" kind of parties. Do we know anything about how Aztecs reveled in their heyday?

It amazes me that Rome survived the crisis of the 3rd century despite the constant civil wars, invasions by the Sassanids, gothic raids, and plagues. How did they not fall from these threats? Were these other powers fighting amongst themselves just as much so they couldn't fully take advantage?

In particular I was wondering about earlier Medieval castles built during The Anarchy - many of which were done without Royal Permission to such an extent that it became a serious concern.

Now understandably these were much simpler Motte and Bailey castles as opposed to the towering stoneworks we often see in fantasy and historical fiction but I was rather surprised at so many being built in a relatively short period of time.

Specifically a source of conflict between King Stephen and John Marshal was the building of a castle or fort at Newbury that was able to withstand King Stephen's army for some time. Could Stephen not have done something to interrupt the creation of the castle rather than be forced into a siege or by some combination of the slow speed of information and the pace at which these castles could be built mean that by the time he knew about it there was little he could do to stop it?

All the wine I've seen has been either dark red or translucent, and all the seas I've seen have been bluish or green. Was wine different in Ancient Greece, or was the sea different, or was it some kind of translation error, or what?

I'm not very well-versed on the subject, and it's VERY broad, but it seems that at some point we had knights and lords leading armies and fighting wars, and now we have NCOs and officers leading armies and fighting wars. Where did the change begin?

If I'm enlisting as a 68-series Healthcare Specialist in the United States Army, and rank up high enough, I'll become an NCO. Then I go to medical school and become an officer by commissioning - does this mean that, in effect, the U.S. Army would be knighting me?

Most Western countries seem to have Corporals/Caporals, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains and the like. Where do we get these names from?

I'm reading the book The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer, and on page 92 he writes:

"In 1948, when Israel was first founded, its 650,000 Jews were only about 35 percent of Palestine's population and they owned only 7 percent of its land."

Why was Jewish land ownership so low in comparison to the Jewish population? If so many Jews didn't own land, what kind of living arrangements did they have?

Normally, wars fought by the USSR/Russia see some amount of Western aid to their adversaries. In the case of the Chechen war, this seemed absent. Post-1991, was initial American policy not to antagonize Russia? Because the US was not averse to arming or funding mujahideen in the past.

Mainly talking about the 1944 presidential election

I remember learning the crusades were some of the most bloody embarrassing times in Christian history. I thought they killed pagans, jewish people and Muslims. But lately there have been a lot of crusade apologetics being done that seem to me intuitively untrue. These apologists say it was all about "saving Europe and the world" from Muslim aggression. I know I have read there was some Muslim aggression but it seems like they are exaggerating for a political agenda. Which story is right?

My professor mentioned this briefly but did not elaborate further on the topic or did not explain it well. I mean, Jefferson was a founding father, what drove him to break the constitution so early after its ratification

I've seen a lot of sources claim Japan was on the brink of surrender prior to America dropping the atomic bombs, but I've also seen many sources claim the opposite. Which is true? Also I've seen people claim that the Japanese were training children to run at GI's with sharpened pieces of wood, is there any truth to this claim?

Hello, I'm writing an essay for my first year at uni. I've been given the wider theme "War and politics in Anituquity". I've been wanting to write about dictatorship as an institution in ancient Rome. I need some help identifying helpful sources and if possible critique on the questions I'll be trying to answer. The working title is "What was to be expected of a dictator and how did these expectations change over time". Some of the questions I'll be trying to answer in some shape or form are as follows.

• When a dictator was elected it was to serve a specific purpose, how did they decide whether a dictator was necessary or not?
• How did the average roman percieve elected dictators, did these perceptions change throughout the republics life?
• What goods / restrictions came with the office if any.
• Do we find similar offices elsewhere in the world of antiquity?
• Which functions did the dictator serve and did these change throughout the republics lifetime?

/u/XenophonTheAthenian has already been kind enough to suggest

The Constitution of the Roman Republic by Lintott.

Religious dictators of the Roman Republic by Kaplan.

*Römisches Staatsrecht by Mommsen though I cannot read german.

Some possible sources I've identified myself are:

The Concept of 'Crisis': What can We Learn from the Two Dictatorships of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus? by Oren Gross.

Cincinnatus and the Citizen-servant Ideal: The Roman Legend's Life, Times and Legacy by M. Hillyard.

Imperium Maius in the Roman Republic by V. Ehrenberg

The Origin of Roman Dictatorship by D. Cohen.

Any help would be greatly appreciated :)

Edit: I don't know how to remove the 'Gender' flair.

I can see how we'd have accounts of the seige from Mexican soldiers. How do we know about things like Colonel Travis' famous line in the sand and other things the Mexicans couldn't have known?

Came across a weird thread on /leftypol/ a while back where a user claimed that Max Stirner/Johann Caspar Schmidt was not a real person. They argued that Max was instead created by Engels as a pseudonym to promote ideas Engels held but did not feel comfortable expressing publicly. Partially due to wanting to avoid straining his relations with Marx, and perhaps in hope of bringing Marx around to his point of view and persuading him and others that egoist ideas were fairly compatible with communism.

They offered as evidence that little or nothing is known about Stirner, that much of what we do know (including the only known depictions of his appearance) come via Frederich Engels, that elements of his philosophy are similar to opinions held by Engels earlier in life, a lack of governmental documentation related to Stirner, and some irregularities with his grave that I cannot recall.

I know little about the ins and outs of German philosophical circles during the relevant time frame, so I have to ask: is there any merit to this claim, or is it utter bunk?