Hi All,

I hope the question below doesn't seem tendentious or even conspiratorial.

When one looks at a map of the plantations in Ireland one can see that the areas that were 'Officially Planted' are areas with a majority population that does not self identify as British and areas that were 'unofficially planted' (in Antrim and Down) are areas with a majority population that self identifies as British.

I'm not interested in the minutiae of Northern Irish demographics ; however there is a connection between perceived ancestral religious affiliation and identification with Britishness (please let's not discuss the reasons for this identification unless challenging the contention).

It is contended that the 'Protestant' population of Ulster are descended from planters and my question is; is this true?

After all many Gaelic speaking areas of Scotland became Calvinist and no one contends that these areas were planted. Why is it held that Gaelic speaking people in Ireland were immune from conversion. Certainly much land in Antrim and Down was leased to undertakers and they were supposed to bring people over to farm it but wouldn't it have made more sense to use the locals; Perhaps with a couple of Scots to demonstrate modern techniques? There was a category defined as deserving Irish who were allowed to retain land ; how better to demonstrate that one was deserving that conversion?

I know this question is confused but I sort of wonder if the planatations thing is just a lie.

Okay, I know, really stupid question. So by my understanding, before developing advanced traits, humans didn't have conflict. So when did humans begin to split up? Or is my knowledge of history incompetent, and we were split up for far longer than that. If I need to elaborate more, I will. Thanks in advance!

Hi, I would appreciate any ideas or topics people could offer me for a 12,000 word Ancient History dissertation. I am particularly interested in Roman social history (e.g. lower classes, amphitheatre games, slavery etc.). Anything you can offer will be appreciated, thanks!

I'm reading Beevor's Ardennes 1944, and he touches on the strained relations between the allies, or more specifically the British and the Americans, which led me to wonder whether the Entente nations during the First World War had similar disagreements (I was thinking specifically about Britain and France), or whether their relations were far smoother than in the Second World War.

Like how Hannibal Barca led his men to/through the Alps to surprise the Romans.

I never gave much thought to it until now. I mean, do they climb the mountain up and down or just find some passes to go through? How do they pass the baggage train?

Hitler killed about 6 million Jews, but about 20-30 million Russians, 6 million Poles, as well as many other Slavs died due to Hitler and his policies.

I am just referring to the 19th century with this question as before the industrial revolution industry and infrastructure didn't really exist in the modern sense.

Is it because they all came from the Caucasus? Or is there another reason? Also, If this is the wrong subreddit to ask this, then please point me to the right one.

Being a collector of Warsaw Pact military stuff, every so often I see reference to East Germany's involvement in southeast Asia (example: all of the DDR-made SKS rifles in the US are believed to have been brought back from the war). Just how much influence did they have in the course of the war?

Any newspaper articles or something like that?

Bonus: Did any black soldiers work under British and French command in WW2? How were they treated?

I ask this due to the mixed opinions I find on the subject. Some say the allies just sacrificed Poland and didn't want to provide support, even shaming the allies for their lack of action even if they declared war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland. And others say that the allied country's did all they can, with what they had at the time.

Just want to know what you guys make of this, as I understand its still a bit of a hot topic even today.

I'm interested in the dichotomy between 1984 (where obedience is forced by threat) and Brave New World (where obedience is baited by conditioning) and whether these two authors ever confronted the difference. Either in direct correspondence with one another or through commentary on each other's work.