I am in the process of writing a song about a shipwreck during a bad storm off of the coast of Balbriggan in 1875 (Belle Hill). According to local history, as the ship sank, the coast guard could not launch the local rescue boat so some local guys (James and John Carton) launched their own fishing boat to attempt a rescue. The rescue was only moderately successful, but they still received a medal for it. What I am trying to do is figure out what KIND of boat would have been typical for coastal fishermen in 1875 Ireland. The Bell (Belle) Hill was a merchant ironclad from what I gather which also seems strange, but I could be wrong about that too. I am finding a lot about river boats and some mention of schooners, but I am getting some conflicting information since some places say schooners were not typical until after the 1880s in this area.

So, what do you folks think? What would be the most LIKELY type of fishing boat used in coastal Ireland in 1875 by normal, everyday fishermen of modest means? Also, does it seem reasonable that a merchant ship would be an ironclad? Lastly, any discussions about typical fishing and fishing villages in Ireland would be appreciated.

I am very interested in the Great Depression But i can't get any information about it on internet or if me found it i think it's not enough for me

Hi all, I'm an incoming Australian honours student in history, currently working through the process of choosing my field of study (I'm deciding between pre-modern Japanese history and Renaissance Italy - quite different, I know!).

I was wondering how you all made your decision, and whether there were other factors that influenced this - for example, do universities seek to fulfil a certain quota, is one specialisation in greater supply/demand than others, does a language barrier matter etc.

Thanks in advance for your input :)

Researchers and historians can easily find the truth from only twenty years ago or even a couple centuries ago. However when researching like 4,500 years ago, records become not only rare but also subject to copyist errors or tampering. Or researchers and historians have to make educated guesses when the historical context of a record is unclear or when the alphabet lacked many conventions like vowels, punctuation, or even standard spelling. At what point does truth become hard to discover? And records become hard to trust or understand?

Why didn't the peoples of the Russian Empire (Specifically the Poles. I assume they'd be especially inspired after being granted an independent state by Napoleon.) attempt to fight for their independence?

If so, why was his invention forgotten?

Is this book good enough to read?

I've read a few times of instances in Belarusian villages where an animal was found dead and people blamed chupacabras. Thing is, chupacabras are legendary animals from Central America - how did belief in them cross the ocean like that? And if that's too narrow a question, are there any examples of similar legends being picked up in cultures very geographically distant from its place of origin?

After Germany invaded France, Germany hoped that the UK would make a peace treaty, but it did not happen and the war continued. In fact, even before the pearl harbor attack, the UK had already deciphered the japanese codes, and yet they did not warn the USA because UK was looking for allies to stop Germany. So why did the uk hate germany so much? why didn't the uk join the axis powers? why didnt the UK make a peace treaty?????

Amendments are notoriously difficult to pass. Why did the Temperance movement decide to use a constitutional amendment to enforce Prohibition, rather than rely on a federal law, which could presumably have been passed much earlier?

I love history and care deeply about "getting it right". When perusing this subreddit I often see (often in critiques of popular history's sloppy historiography compared to 'real/good' historians) comments like, "but really the author you should be consulting is so-and-so, they're an expert in Roman religious iconography of Pompeiian frescoes" and I think, "shoot, I'll never have the time to read to that degree of specificity in every part of history I want to know about" and thus, by extension, "I'll never progress past a Dan Carlin/Mike Duncan level of historical rigour".

Understandably, that's unintentionally demoralising! Historians of Reddit, do you think laypeople can learn the historical method to a standard that full time professionals would respect?

How would I do that?

Context: I'm a high school history teacher. History is a hobby and a passion beyond my job but currently I can't afford becoming a PhD student to learn the historiographical method to that standard full time.

First, I actually don't know much about Jewish depictions of angels, and whether they're the same as Christian depictions.
But anyway. We're all familiar with angels depicted as slightly androgynous men with wings. And a man with multiple wings is mentioned, like, once or twice in the Bible, but in metaphorical sections (Revelation, etc). But mostly the New Testament, especially in the sections intended to be read as "this is what happened" not "this is a metaphorical vision I had" (such as the Gospels) depict them as young men. The Old Testament mainly seems to just say "Angels" with no description at all ("I saw the Angel of the Lord," "Abraham was visited by some angels"). And then you get stuff where people have visions of angels as wheels covered in eyes, beasts with 4 faces and 6 wings, etc.

So where did these winged men come from, that are so common in art? Greece? (I assume the winged babies are from Greece). Zorastrianism? What?