I recently read a biography of Borges which drew a comparison between the politics 19th-century Argentina and Borges' own family history.

It suggested that the struggles between the unitarios and the federales, and the dichotomy suggested by Sarmiento of civilisation and barbarism, held particular resonance for Borges because of how the 'intellectual' heritage of his father's side (including an English grandmother) contrasted with the 'criollo' ancestors on his mother's side.

Was this personal to Borges? How, if at all, did the struggles between the unitarios and the federales continue to influence Argentine politics and society in the 20th century?

My cursory internet research into 19th century Polo is turning up vague results, variously stating that Polo was first played in England by the 10th Hussars in 1834 and also, not played in England until after the Crimean war in the 1860s. Did soldiers in Crimea play polo in their down time, or would they not even have heard of the game?

And if so, why did they do it, other than for punishment? It's a common theme in old movies and cartoons that prisoners break rocks for hard labor, but why would they do it? Surely there were machines that could do the job better, even before the modern era.

I searched the faq but to my surprise it wasn't there... Which sport was the first to adopt numbers as identifiers? How quickly did it spread to other sports?

I've heard about this, and I'd like to know more and the context of these events.

I know St Augustine was very much in favor of slavery. It'd be odd if the roman church was against it so early on.

It seems incredibly easy to find the titles and household servants you would find in Western castles. We're familiar with chancellors and castellans and seneschals and manservants.

What are some of the titles (preferably in romanji) that we could expect to see in a Japanese castle serving a daimyo?

Who ran the day to day operations of the castle for the lord? Did he have a host of advisers with actual titles, or were they simply samurai? Did he tend to have a chancellor or a seneschal? Who was the head servant and so forth?

I know some English surnames come from their original trade e.g. Fletcher. What about Chinese surnames? Indian surnames?

Whether its March[er Lord], Margrave, Marquisat, you have examples across Europe of this form of title which was given to lords on the frontiers [usually of Christendom], whether it be in Southern France (Spanish March), or East Germania etc. How were these divided differently from regular Counties/Comte or Duchies/Dux/Duce? And how did the title of Margrave or Marquis evolve from Marcher Lord, or did they not at all?

Did Marcher Lords have more power (hence more autocratic) as it was an unsettled border region, that needed a more direct hand from a military figure, or was it the complete opposite, where the King created these titles, so he could have a weak governor in charge, so he/she could wield authority in subduing the rough border regions of a Kingdom, as an open battleground, not yet ready for permanent nobility.

I apologize if my answer is too vague, but in a course I took at university years ago I recall a professor mentioning off-hand the way medieval banks would strategically back certain monarchs. In particular, I remember my professor talking about how sometimes, if a monarch was unable to pay back loans, banks would finance their enemies in an attempt to basically get the money owed to them through shear force. Any information on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

I know ground burials have an incredibly long history, but have any cultures (besides navies) buried their dead under water? I do mean in natural bodies of water, but burial practices involving submersion in baths or something would also be interesting to hear about.

I was thinking about this when I was watching some Roman flick.

These people all live in a pretty warm climate and dress accordingly with light and skin revealing attire. So them not having any "pharmaceutical" or medical protection seems like it'd be a persistent issue with no solution other than to you know wear more clothes.

Was this even an issue back then?

I would like to know to what extent the great debates that shook the french revolution were democratic? That is to say, could anyone walk up and share their ideas? Were only members of a certain class able to voice their opinion? Or were the real important decisions taken aside in secrecy?

Take for example the church Sainte-Genevieve which became The Pantheon. Who made that call? How was it decided at first what men should be buried there?

In short, was the average parisian an active part of the revolution?

Thank you.

Were early firearm designers simply not capable of imagining something like a revoler or lever action rifle, or was the construction of the necessary mechanisms simply not available at the time?

Also, with the Spencer repeating rifle having been invented in 1860, why didn't they see more use during the Civil War?