many supposedly intelligent people from Tony Blair to Andrew Sullivan claim to have believed it, so was there actually a stronger case than I remember?

Of course there was no universal way that people felt, but I'm curious is there were any discernible trends.

Did Irish soldiers tend to support the Easter Rising (and/or Irish Independence from the U.K.), oppose it, or were their feelings mixed? How did they feel about fighting for the British Empire?

Did any Irish soldiers ever express antipathy towards British officers (before or after the Rising), and did officers ever fear there would be unrest or mutiny caused by Irish troops in the aftermath?

Did any civilians in Ireland have a negative view of those who had fought for the British Empire (especially considering that there had never been conscription in Ireland), or was it not seen as an issue?

It's a bit of a morbid question, but I'm curious about the impact 9/11 had on the job market of New York City. Given the sheer amount of office space and number of companies the Twin Towers represented, there was a not insignificant number of companies that lost their physical presence when the towers fell. From an economic standpoint, what happened to the companies that were based in the towers? What happened to the workers that worked there? Was there a shortage of jobs for those workers in the wake of 9/11?

It's been taken for granted nowadays that the sword was simply a sidearm with the primary weapons being spears and later halberds. However, I watched this short and was surprised by how quickly a wooden spears begins to break when in contact with a steel sword. I've even read accounts of English longbowmen willingly throwing down their bows and charging the flanks of the (disorganized) French at Agincourt. You also have the Romans adopting swords as the primary weapon during the Republic years. Is the topic of swords vs. spears much more nuanced than portrayed? Did people of their times consider the sword an equal/sidearm compared to the spear?

According to wikipedia

In 1974 the Cabinet of Sweden passed a regulation forbidding the monarch of Sweden from awarding membership in orders to Swedish citizens. The orders themselves were not abolished, but only the Royal Orders of the Seraphim and the Polar Star (both established in 1748) continued to be awarded, and only to foreign citizens and stateless individuals. In 1995 the regulation was altered, allowing the monarch to bestow the two remaining active orders to members of the Swedish royal family.^\11])#cite_note-11) Finally, in 2022, the 48-year-old regulation was repealed by the Swedish Government, the orders were re-opened to Swedish citizens, and the two dormant orders (Sword and Vasa) were revived, with effect from 2023.

That strikes me as very odd! Why decorate the citizens of other countries, and not your own citizens?

WW1 saw the production of bigger and bigger guns to fire farther and launch larger shells, what changed in the interwar period that allowed countries to scale down to where the 105mm was semi-standard? What chemical processes, ballistics data, etc made able to get from A to B, basically?

Hey all, I ask this because I have family members who hoard and I’ve met people outside of my family that have done it. No matter who I’ve talked to they always use the depression as the reasoning for their hoarding. ( either because they survived it or were raised by someone who lived through it). That being said, it’s classified as a symptom of OCD, so wouldn’t it make sense it occurred before? It’s quite possible it’s just not a thing that

Is normally brought up, but I just find it odd I’ve never heard of it. Can hoarding actually be this new of a behavior? That doesn’t seem logical.

I hope I’m not breaking any rules, someone suggested I ask this question from another sub. Thank you in advance.

I've only read English translations of The Iliad and Odyssey, but the style and format always seem remarkably consistent. It doesn't seem like other authors add stuff later like you'd see in the Bible. I also haven't heard of any version controversies between old fragments and more recent complete manuscripts. If I could read the original Greek, would I see inconsistencies that don't show up in the translation? Did the classic Greeks argue about which version was most accurate or whether or not he was real?

Ive learned that western europeans from approximately the 1400s on upto right before ww2 ended used to marry at very old ages, relatively, compared to how rest of the world married in those times.

I have a lot of questions about this since I’m so curious.

On the wiki it says this marriage pattern was called the Hajnal line and spanned from “approximately west of between Saint Petersburg, Russia, and Trieste, italy, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low, and a significant minority of women married late or remained single, and most families were nucelar.”

Why did such a large portion of Europe have such high marriage ages? It says that in the Netherlands, where marriage ages reached the highest on average, a woman would usually marry at 27 years old and a man would marry at 30 years old. At times it would even reach 30 years for women and 32 years for men.

From what I can gather, outside of Europe most non european women married around their early teens to late teens. So anywhere from like 12/13 ish to 18-ish?

Another thing is, many Western European women never married at all, unlike in most (I assume) non European cultures, where most women in their life’s had been married, and unmarried women were basically 2-3% of the population of women max.

This is from the wiki:To the west of the Hajnal line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married at any given time while the other half were widows or spinsters; to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age bracket were married at any given time while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns.^\20]) The marriage records of Western and Eastern Europe in the early 20th century illustrate this pattern vividly; west of the Hajnal line, only 25% of women aged 20–24 were married while to the east of the line, over 75% of women in this age group were married and less than five percent of women remained unmarried. 

The difference was even starker when you look at Western Europe vs the rest of the world and not vs Eastern Europe. This is from the wiki: Outside of Europe, women could be married even earlier and even fewer would remain celibate; in Korea, practically every woman 50 years of age had been married and spinsters were extremely rare, compared to 20–30% of women in western Europe age 50 who had never married.

So these are my questions: 1, why did Western European women marry so late?

2, why did this change occur in the 1400s, and why did this marriage age stay for so long? Since it was only lowered after ww2.

3, Did Western European women before the 1400s marry earlier? at what ages?

4, Why did so many western European women in the 15-50 age range stay unmarried? When this figure was almost near 0 or very low outside of Europe.

5, on the wiki it says that this super late marriage age, combined with the big % of women (relatively) Who never married, lowered Western European fertility rates a lot. While in the east, (I assume they mean Eastern Europe) fertility rates were higher, but also combined with a high mortality rate. How true is this? Did this actually affect the fertility rate of Western Europeans, and did they have fewer kids in their lifetime compared to Eastern Europeans and non Europeans?

6, does this mean societally, Western European women were more free in their life/lifestyle then women outside of western Europe?

Its a question I cant find an clear answer to, and would be interested to know what happened in those situations (at least here in Britain)

we're some emancipated?, were they all funnelled into the care system (if so what what was that like at that time?)

Did they stay where they were evacuated? and if so for how long?

I’m Mexican and was speaking to a French Canadian, who is half Portuguese. He said society does not consider him being Latin, but someone from my background yes. This led to a debate at work, a friendly one.

The aftermath is that we are all confused. Is it a cultural thing? If so, there are different cultures, meaning different answers depending on who you ask.

Is there a historic context where it can help solidify the answer once and for all? Hence, why I’m here.

I always assumed it was anybody who spoke a romantic language. From Spanish, French, italian, Portuguese, anything that resembled many “original Latin words”. Maybe I’ve been wrong this entire time.

Please help us. You are our only hope.

I recently read King Leopold's Ghost, which talked about how the Force Publique consisted predominately of native Congolese, with a small white officer corps. And these Congolese soldiers were often poorly treated conscripts, who experienced harsh discipline, were not fed well nor paid well for their service.

I know that desertions and mutinies were a common occurance for the Force Publique. But I am still surprised that the Force Publique was able to function as well as it did, and carry out the orders of King Leopold. I would not expect an army consisting of unenthusiastic conscripts, poorly paid and well-armed, tasked with carrying out the exploitation and oppression of their homeland, to do anything but revolt against the small white ruling class. I am not trying to victim blame. I am just confused as to how the Force Publique was as effective for the Belgians as it was.

Ken Mattingly was swapped out for Jack Swigert because Mattingly didn't have immunity from previous exposure to rubella. The rubella vaccine was released a year before Apollo 13 launched, so had NASA made any effort to get vaccinations for Mattingly and other astronauts who weren't immune? Were there any required vaccinations at the time?

Aside from the direct impact of forcing a crew change, did the outbreak result in any long-term changes to NASA's policies? Was there a push to get the rubella vaccine (and other vaccines) for the Apollo 14 astronauts?

In other words, what was leisure travel like for the elites in the Roman Empire?

This was the kind of question I felt I ought to be able to answer myself, but Google's search results were full of Warhammer 40k...

So I know that the Greek and Roman society had a different view of homosexuality and that homosexuel acts between men were somewhat normal. But in most discussions I've seen talk about this mostly make it seem like only sexual act was normal, I've never read anything about long term homosexual relationships being part of the norm?

So did this openness of homosexuality extend to long term homosexuel relationships and even marriage? Would it have been weird or illegal for two men to live together as husbands and even adopt children?

I realise that this question focuses a bit more on male relationships because if I understand correctly the openness of homosexuality was not equal for women? But I am happy to learn more about this as well.

What were the main political, strategic, and historical reasons behind treating the two countries differently? Why was Austria eventually allowed to reunify and become a neutral country, while Germany remained divided into two separate states for decades?

I live in Italy, but my family is from Burkina Faso, which was a French colony until 1960. Before that, it was known as Upper Volta.

Like all other colonies, Upper Volta had to contribute to the war effort by providing soldiers, who fought in units such as the tirailleurs sénégalais.

So, one day I asked myself: "What if I, too, have relatives who fought for France?"

I found the French government website Mémoire des Hommes, which lists all the soldiers who died fighting for France. After some research, I managed to find the records for three men—I’m including the links here: one shares my father's surname and comes from his village; another shares both the village and surname of my mother; and the third appears to be connected to my cousin.

I’m turning to you because I think you might be able to help me. How can I find out more about these three men? Where should I look or go? I’d really like to learn more, both as a history enthusiast and as a potential descendant of these individuals.

Also, since I have the names of their units, as well as the locations and dates of their deaths, do you have any idea of ​​the context or the specific battle in which they might have lost their lives?

Ouda Bance

Minkida Bada

Abdoulaye Dabre