I have a little background in English history, but this is a question I have always wondered about. Other colonial holdings were 'given up' with much less of a fight, why was Northern Ireland the exception?

Would it be a bit like modern sporting events, where you have to pay to view? Or were they state sponsored and free for all? Finally, were there class restrictions on who could view the games?

Why did people wear shoes with heels so often and over such a span of history? Seems like they'd be an encumbrance rather than helpful.

In the show Vikings, I have seen them have chickens, but it was my understanding this was not really true.

Is there any merit to Noam Chomsky's claim that the US has been the major barrier to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine?

Did people name themselves after objects and animals like movies often portray? When did surnames start popping up?

To be more precise my Tatar origin is from Uralic mountains so not the Crimeria tatars. My grandmother is from city of Ufa and is Muslim (so were her descendants). I wish to find books that talk about history of Tatars from the most earliest point possible. I can read in English and Russian. I have read some history about Sibir as the geographic location, and a lot about tatars is mentioned, but I would love to find a good book that talks only about tatars.

If you do an image search for "old checks" you'll note that until about the 1960s there was no account number on bank checks, and when they appear they are invariably the magnetic OCR type numbers that are obviously for machine reading.

If you write me a check in 1945, say, and I take it to my(?) bank to deposit/cash it, how does the bank know whose account to debit? All they have to go on is the signature at the bottom, with variable legibility and lots of room for ambiguity (common names, first initials, etc.).

If so how were they similar/different from restaurants today? Who would the clientele have been? What was the status of a restauranteurs?

Had they any idea of the world of the far east, and how did people respond to the discovery of the new world back in Europe?

I have often heard about the discipline of the Roman formations and strict discipline. Was there anything in place to prevent the act of murdering the young, or was it more of a slavery or death situation?

I would have thought it would be a logistical debacle with all of the upheaval.

In regards to the Hundred Years war, I often hear (from questionable) sources that the English Archers had a sidearm and maybe something like a padded jack. I find this amazing because the English have had some decisive victories over the French , shouldn't an archer have a pretty good chance at taking over the armor and weapons of a knight?

Would there be plate-armored archers after a few victories?

Now this question has been bothering me for years and today I found time to ask. I can't help but find it strange that there were institutions back in history [mainly middle ages] where only same sex 'believers' could join. The normal explanation would obviously be that they are not having sex at all and hence stay pure and don't need the other gender around them for temptation.

This explanation leaves me unfulfilled though. Something just isn't right because a) humans will always crave sex [bar a very small minority], especially men and b) there must have been gay people out there who could [because of religion ironically] not 'come out' in those days. Yet they still had the love for their own.

So what do you do? That is where monasteries and nunneries come in. It is the perfect solution for homosexuals. They would have kept their dignity, would have been away from the heterosexual world where they were in danger plus they could be with each other.

Are there are any clues that this may have been a possibility such as writings or pictures or even anecdotes?

BTW this is not an "What if" question, this is a legitimate thought/ question I have based on logic and I would like to see what evidence there may be. Even the smallest ones would be interesting. If however there is none whatsoever, I'd like to ask if it is possible that homosexuals may have joined on purpose to be safe/with others or out of self-shame?

Did people just ditch one for the other all of a sudden? Or was there a gradual change? If it was gradual, how is it that we can tell one from the other?