Hi, AskHistorians, I'm interested in learning about the history of Ireland, which I've only studied peripherally. I'm American with a lot of Irish ancestry and want to learn more about the island's history from its beginning. Does anyone know a good book that outlines the entire history of Ireland?

I think I remember something reading something while ago that said the Newcomen engine was first developed and adopted in areas that had cheap and easy access to coal. Am I remembering this correctly?

I'm currently listening to a spooky story podcast (Lore) and it tells a bunch of different ghost stories from New England. And being from Atlanta I am fairly familiar with Southern ghost stories and it seems to me that they are fairly different--southern stories have a lot fewer industrial accident and immigrants and a lot more rundown plantation homes and daughters wasting away of tuberculosis/broken hearts.

It is clear that there are environmental differences here, but did they also have different European folklore models? Did one of these serve as the model for the other?

(reposted due to new theme)

I find it so strange that the Duchy of Couronia, which was hardly an independent state, managed to establish a Caribbean colony, while the polities of Italy did not. It seems that most Italian cities were much more prominent naval powers than Couronia. Did Milan or Genoa ever propose colonization?

Now, forgive me as I know very little about the Greek language, but why is it that countries in the western roman empire (portugal, france, spain, italy, etc) all developed latin-esque romance languages, yet greek (as far as I know) stayed as it was with its own language and alphabet?

I ask this question since greece was under the rule of the byzantine/roman empire for almost 1000 years longer than any of the countries of the western roman empire, so I would have though it would have developed a romance language too.

I do know that at one point the byzantine emperors stopped speaking latin and started speaking only greek, but why did this occur? And why didn't something similar happen in the western roman empire?

Thanks for the answers!

I'm reading "Modern Times" now, and he makes some definitive assertions that I've only ever seen elsewhere as possibilities. He's a fantastic writer, but I don't know what his reputation is as far as the actual history goes.

Did Marilyn Monroe and those from her generation party?

I know Pashtunwali places great emphasis on revenge and this seems to be at odds with Buddhism's emphasis on non-attachment and peace in general. So I was wondering, how did the two ethical codes interact back in the day when Afghanistan was Buddhist?

I'm beginning to read into the Russian Revolution era, and Figes's "People's Tragedy" is certainly a good place to begin. But I had a question with regards the capacity for revolution under Alexander III.

It seems that serious unrest had grown in Russia ever since the Serf Emancipation in 1861, before Alexander III clamped down harshly on any dissent when he became Tsar in 1881. However, this unrest seems to accelerate upon Nicholas II succeeding his father in 1894.

So my query is: would this acceleration of unrest have happened anyway if Alexander III had remained in power after 1894, or did the accession of the weak-willed Nicholas provide the excuse for that acceleration? And if Alexander III had remained in power, would his talent for suppression and crackdowns have halted the demands for social and economic reforms in their tracks?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

My grandfather made note that Native American tribes never practiced hand to hand combat of any type, only armed combat. I thought that seemed unlikely, as hand to hand combat is easily the most natural to humans. So did any native tribes practice martial arts or purely hand to hand combat?

It is claimed that Lenin once told something along the lines of "All dictators fall only after causing a civil war." Not sure if the quote attribution is correct, but I am curious about the dynamics and statistics of it. Did all dictators fall only after causing a civil war in their countries or are there any exceptions to it?

Thank you.

Even if they couldn't purchase tickets to professional concerts, did people buy the sheet music and play it at home in the family, in the local pub, or at village fairs?

Almost everywhere else in Europe: France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the Balkans, Greece, Eastern Europe, and Russia were the main theater of war for most of World War I and World War II and faced an incredible amount of property damage and civilian casualties. However, apart from Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark and Finland's battles with the Soviet Union, I think it is fair to say that Scandinavia (mostly Sweden) was spared from most of the bloodshed that plagued the rest of the continent. My question is, did this relative lack of invasion greatly contribute to their current status of wealth? I believe many attribute the United States' post-war rise to prominence to their profits from selling arms to Europe while keeping their country intact with all the fighting occurring thousands of miles away, so I feel like the reason is somewhat shared between the United States and Sweden.

I was giving a look at the book "Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire" by Parvaneh Pourshariati and in there it was stated that in 615, based on the historian Sebeos, the roman senate was suing for peace and asked Khosrau II to accept Heraclius as his son. And that would effectively make the Roman Empire a Sassanian client state.

That felt off to me for a number of reasons. In the previous book that I've have read: "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity" they mention the peace treaty of 615 and that Heraclius was ready to be a recognized as a "son" (and even that it wasn't the only time a Byzantine ruler was ready to make that kind of submission) but it sounds like it would be a normal peace treaty. Besides, although in 615 the Roman Empire had suffered heavy losses to the Persians, the core Balkans, Anatolia and Egypty were still in its possession, even if they were raided and/or threatened by Slavs and Persians. Not to mention the Western provinces. And the Roman Empire was still very much capable of fighting, considering they, albeit at huge costs, were able to win the war at the end. So by that time offering to make the Roman Empire a client state seems a bit drastic to me.

The original source, that is of Sebeos, seems to be very reliable, but I'm wondering about the validity of the conclusion of the author.

Gratitude.

I was curious what the first battle was between two professional armies and how things went with it. I figured some of you more knowledgable folks might be able to point me in the right direction.

I've been listening to Napoleon: A Life as an audiobook and I'm fascinated by Napoleon's level of humane treatment towards defeated enemies on the most part. How much effort would he put into treating wounded enemy soldiers after a massive battle like Borodino?