1 Answers 2016-03-22
At that time, Lynch said, the Irish played hurling, a game they’d enjoyed for three thousand years. But the English banned the game.
In response, Irish athletes took out the parts of hurling that were specifically forbidden and came up with a new game. That game eventually became Gaelic football.
Source: An American news website.
This is not a claim I've ever heard before. Is there any truth to it?
2 Answers 2016-03-22
I am also intrigued by the Warren Court period, so if their is a recommendable book on the Warren Court that would be fantastic!
This may seem like a brief or immature question but I made sure to check the subreddit rules, which stated:
"Posts that ask for reading recommendations are allowed. You may also wish to check the book list."
And I could not find anything relating to my desired topic on the book list.
Thank you for your time!
2 Answers 2016-03-22
2 Answers 2016-03-22
Hi all,
My question pertains to the Zimmerman Telegram. For people who don't know what that was, here's a very quick rundown. During World War I, Germany sent a coded telegram to Mexico, notifying them that they planned to resume submarine attacks in the Atlantic. Germany proposed that if the United States should declare war on Germany, Mexico would join Germany in war against the United States. Mexico would be given the opportunity to retake territory in the Southern United States. Mexico rejected this offer.
My question is: do we have any primary sources that show whether Mexico ever toyed with accepting this offer? Any insight into communication that occurred among Mexican leaders/decision-makers about this offer would be appreciated.
Thanks!
1 Answers 2016-03-22
THis is a meta question, in reality, I'm not asking something about a specific historical event, but about the historical method. So i choose to ask historians about!
I imagine that sciences or fields of study select their subjetcs of study. A economist will study the exchange between the people, and will only matter about a natural fact when there is some economical consequence.
So, what is the "subject" of study of the historian? In a cartesian way of thinking, everything that happened before is important to what happened after. But the historian don't analyses the mood of a historical person in the day, if he quarreled with his wife, how was the weather, only in very specific circunstances.
And I believe too that a science/field of study, when empirical, is based in trying to form relations of causality (am I being positivist?), so what the relation of causality that the historian searches?
I know that the answer of my question will depend on the approach of the historian, but I am willing to know all.
2 Answers 2016-03-22
Military tactics generally place huge importance on identifying and securing key terrain, which tends to favor those with local knowledge or the most accurate maps; so I'm curious how they accomplished such vast conquests if they didn't have this knowledge in advance.
2 Answers 2016-03-22
It's common for Justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they were involved before becoming a Justice and I was wondering if Taft ever had to do the same.
2 Answers 2016-03-22
1 Answers 2016-03-22
I've been reading through this book on early medieval Europe, by Roger Collins. It seems to be quite up-to-date on modern scholarship, so it has a lot of "revisionist" history, some of which feels quite challenging. I'm curious how much of this is the new standard viewpoint on medieval history, and how much of this is still sort of up for debate.
My previous understanding of the beginnings of Anglo-Saxon is basically an invasion where they become a ruling class over the Britons. While the two cultures do merge to a degree, the Germanic language and culture is dominant, and outside of Cornwall, England becomes essentially a Germanic nation, worshipping Woden & Thor etc. Here, the Celto-Romanic culture is essentially supplanted by a largely Germanic culture, and even if the Celtic Britons are not driven out or wiped out (as was previously thought), this is still a catastrophic event that completely changed the face of England.
However, Collins seems to be downplaying the importance of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. He grants that the language changed dramatically, but he emphasises continuity with Roman Britain, and that the new small kingdoms that appeared probably developed from the power bases of the existing aristocracy. He seems to imply that the Anglo-Saxons were less dominant that is commonly thought, and that there was a more general mixture of culture going on, rather than a strictly Anglo-Saxon ruling class. He also emphasises that Christianity was still present and practised by at least some of the people. Overall, he implies that the Anglo-Saxon invasions were not nearly as significant as they are generally presented, and that the development from a Roman province into small kingdoms was not greatly affected by throwing another group of peoples into the mix.
I'm not sure if I'm portraying his position correctly, but is this basically the current academic consensus around early Medieval Britain? How significant were the Anglo-Saxons on the path of English history?
4 Answers 2016-03-22
Is there any sources where i can read about the lifestyle of kings, like their diet and everything? Especially about Indian Kings!
1 Answers 2016-03-22
I have seen a lot of criticism of the book online about how Jared Diamond cherry picks evidence for his hypothesis about how civilization was more an adaptation than a choice. When I read an overview I thought it had some merit regarding success of civilization. But is it worth reading as many historians consider it a bad hypothesis? If so, any better books?
2 Answers 2016-03-22
I have a research paper due and am looking for credible sources. I do not mind doing the reading myself, just having trouble finding informative information.
I found one paper about the benefits once they allowed even the provincial territories to become Roman citizens, but am having difficulty locating something that speaks more to the average citizen as well as the elite.
Any help would be extremely appreciated!
3 Answers 2016-03-22
Previous weeks' Tuesday Trivias and the complete upcoming schedule.
Today’s trivia theme comes to us from /u/trixareforkiddos!
Too much of our history here seems to focus on people who were like, successful and actually did stuff. Today let’s talk about a more relatable (to me) set, people who massively messed up, or events that just did not work out. Let’s celebrate failure!
Next week on Tuesday Trivia: A re-run! We’ll all learn some good manners (for time travel purposes only) and share unusual lost etiquette.
13 Answers 2016-03-22
I recently read that there are a lot of parallels between Iroquois' power structures and the American ones, which seems to imply the first influenced the latter. Are there any sources that corroborate this?
1 Answers 2016-03-22
In light of recent attacks, someone mentioned that terror attacks are nothing new for the continent. My field of study is US, so my knowledge of the topic is severely limited, so I'm not able to really accurately judge that statement. I am aware of the Munich Olympic attacks, the IRA, and ETA, but not really aware of the historical context that led them to take their actions. Furthermore, I am not aware of other European groups and would like to learn more.
Few things:
When I say modern European history, I'm referring to postwar Europe until 1996 with a liberal definition of Europe, albeit excluding Turkey.
The definition of terrorism I'm using is broad: any action that uses violence to instill fear in a populace to accomplish political goals.
While I'm most interested in European terrorist groups, I'm certainly interested in non-European groups commiting terror attacks on the continent as well.
Looking for any sort of answer - Broad, thematic histories; focus on a particular region, group, or attack; or the politics of individual terrorists are potential topics that come to mind.
Finally, are there any journal articles or books that you would recommend? My school has access to JSTOR and a lot of other resources, so I'd like to toss some stuff on my reading list.
2 Answers 2016-03-22
Is is purely arbitrary, or is there a geographic reason?
2 Answers 2016-03-22
A post in /r/UnresolvedMysteries about the Cagots came to an interesting connection. An unverified claim that iron and wood were thought to not transmit leprosy in mediaeval times, where Cagots were permitted to be wood or iron craftsmen. A list of common Cagot surnames include quite a few variations on "Lazarus" (and quite a few of "Christian"). The Order of St Lazarus was founded to help lepers in Jerusalem but moved to France when Jerusalem fell, within just a few years of the first mention of the Cagots.
Is it possible that the the Order of St Lazarus and the Cagots are one and the same?
1 Answers 2016-03-22
2 Answers 2016-03-22
Was it just a combination of ignorance and religious/social dogma before the Kinsey Report Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 were written?
1 Answers 2016-03-22
With Mary Wollstonecraft criticizing Rousseau for his beliefs on female education in Emile but how far did this view spread to? Did Wollstonecraft's views spread massively through England or not. Also did Rousseau ever reply to Wollstonecraft?
2 Answers 2016-03-22
With the high humidity and cold temperatures, in addition to the poorly insulated wooden ships
Im assuming burning fuel for heat wasn't common because of the fire risk and the inconvenience of hauling coal/charcoal. Ive never heard of a pre-steam engine ship running out of fuel
This would make it lethally cold, how did people survive?
2 Answers 2016-03-22