So what is your favourite period in history?

[Thomas]

Has to be the first 40 years of the 20th Century. So much going on: Russian Revolutions; Lead up to WWI: Ireland: the General Strike; Rise of Fascism & Nazism: victory for the suffragettes; The Crash & Depression; Spain; outbreak of WWII. A very diverse, turbulent and interesting.period.

good period moray.



Especially like the events leading up to irish independence.



good article on that period over on slugger....

Busting the Historical Myths: The Easter Rising Part 2- The Aftermath....



In my previous article I was probably a little mischievous in my conclusion as I attempted to convey that the British Intelligence Community was well aware of the plans for a Rising on Easter Sunday and that there had been on their part a wish to combat and defeat the Irish Volunteer movement once and for all. There is now to this day a general feeling that the Rising and its aftermath changed Ireland utterly. There is a feeling that the Rising was a springboard for an outpouring of Nationalist sentiment that would change Ireland forever. However this may not fully be the case. Was British Intelligence actually right in their approach to allow the Rising to happen and to, as they had told Casement, allow the festering sore to come to a head. This may somewhat be the case. Was the Rising and its aftermath not the seminal moment it is painted and was it in fact one factor, maybe not even the most important, in a number of factors that saw Irish Separatism come to dominate the Political landscape in Ireland?



There can be no doubt that the Easter Rising was met with a great deal of hostility from some sections at the time. However much of the antagonism towards the Volunteers came from those who were termed 'Separation Women'. These were women who relied on the state as their husbands were serving on the frontline in France. Often their husbands sent home money as well representing a decent wage for these women. Throughout the war period and even afterwards there was great hostility between these two factions. Of course the 80,000 strong Unionist community in Dublin was also aghast at the rebels actions. However to many others the Rising itself was met with bafflement and amazement. Throngs of crowds would gather daily to watch the unfolding chaos especially in Mount Street. There was some anger of course at the takeover of many business premises like Jacob's Biscuit factory but for the most part the population was not outright hostile to the Rebel's actions.

[/b]



https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/04/18/busting-the-historical-myths-the-easter-rising-part-2-the-aftermath/#more-129695">https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/04/18/bu ... ore-129695">https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/04/18/busting-the-historical-myths-the-easter-rising-part-2-the-aftermath/#more-129695

[morayloon]

Has to be the first 40 years of the 20th Century. So much going on: Russian Revolutions; Lead up to WWI: Ireland: the General Strike; Rise of Fascism & Nazism: victory for the suffragettes; The Crash & Depression; Spain; outbreak of WWII. A very diverse, turbulent and interesting.period.

[Thomas]

OK Thomas ?

 Im not going to argue with your summery ,history is history after all .I think my Interest in the 16C onward was when the explorers began to settle in numbers and for better or worse Europeanised most of the World through colonisation.

No argument mate , merely a point of discussion.

[Streetwalker]

I guess that must interest you streetwalker with your own personal links to "the new world" and canada.



I would take issue that the 16th and 17th centuries were the time when "the world" was being discovered by european explorers. I think it more proper to say "rediscovered".



I was taught that christopher columbas discovered the new world /americas , but as we know now , the vikings were in the americas centuries before him as the norse settlement at l`anse aux meadows in newfoundland show from the 10th century.



There are also the myths and legends of others like brendan the voyager sailing to america in the 6th century , and even earlier links going back centuries in other cultures .



I agree to an extent what you are saying though about the modern era. Certainly technology has advanced extremely fast over the last century compared to before.

OK Thomas ?

 Im not going to argue with your summery ,history is history after all .I think my Interest in the 16C onward was when the explorers began to settle in numbers and for better or worse Europeanised most of the World through colonisation.

[Thomas]

The 16th and 17th centuries when the World was being discovered by the great explorers of Europe must have been an amazing time to live through even if a little tough .  

I think we have maybe been spoiled a little and taken our own era for granted . The development of transport , the advancement of the sciences  and of course the exploration of space has made my own lifetime a pretty special  period of history

I guess that must interest you streetwalker with your own personal links to "the new world" and canada.



I would take issue that the 16th and 17th centuries were the time when "the world" was being discovered by european explorers. I think it more proper to say "rediscovered".



I was taught that christopher columbas discovered the new world /americas , but as we know now , the vikings were in the americas centuries before him as the norse settlement at l`anse aux meadows in newfoundland show from the 10th century.



There are also the myths and legends of others like brendan the voyager sailing to america in the 6th century , and even earlier links going back centuries in other cultures .



I agree to an extent what you are saying though about the modern era. Certainly technology has advanced extremely fast over the last century compared to before.

[Streetwalker]

The 16th and 17th centuries when the World was being discovered by the great explorers of Europe must have been an amazing time to live through even if a little tough .  

I think we have maybe been spoiled a little and taken our own era for granted . The development of transport , the advancement of the sciences  and of course the exploration of space has made my own lifetime a pretty special  period of history

[Thomas]

How far back do we have to go for it to be history. I liked the 70s

2 seconds ago is history. Any period you like.  Although when i went to school the 70`s and more recent history would have been more classed as modern studies.

[Thomas]

:hattip



I have never really gotten into the ancient Brits, largely because most of the stuff seems to centre on Boudicca. As I recall Tacitus gave her a couple of thousands words and since then the industry has not looked back.

Not really borkie. Boudicca was nothing more than a fleeting glimpse on ancient history as you say.. When you talk about the ancient britons , you need to realise you are talking not about the ancestors of the scottish and english , but the ancestors of the welsh. The scottish and english were for the most part their enemies , and took large chunks of land off them , pushed many of them westwards then assimilated or slaughtered those that remained. Cornwall and cumbria were the areas in england were they clung on the longest , as was the old kingdom of strathclyde in scotland , which by the 11th century was reduced down to roughly modern lanarkshire .



A lot of english folk dont seem to like this aspect of history for of course it blows a hole in the myth the "british" are a homogenous nation of people when of course you look at history that simply isnt true. Its these ancient peoples , their territories and lands of course which gave us the modern nations of these islands today.



..and of course why there is no "british " language spoken in britain by the majority . English only became the majority language in recent centuries  , whereas before that the celtic languages were spoken by a large part of the population in these islands.

The problem to me is that writers such as Simon Schama start off with a theory and then try to prove it, which is fun if you are Simon Shama. I don't put much store by what he has to say, but he writes well and that is good enough for me

im not generally a big fan of his. Not a bad article , and obviously interesting in relation to the current times we are living in , but im more of a fan of the likes of michael lynch  , tam devine , GWS Barrow , p . b ellis and many many others.



I hate the establishmment lackey types of historian who play it safe. Neil oliver types for example. What a tool that man is.

[johnofgwent]

I have a bit of a fascination with the 1920's t0 the 1950's



Frankly, I feel the quality of life and standard of living available to then a chap of my ability is orders of magnitude better than the shit I am in now, and I cite the standard of living enjoyed by my grandfather's and father's generation as proof.

[Wiggles]

How far back do we have to go for it to be history. I liked the 70s

[Borchester]

Like you borkie , im not sure i have a favourite period in history. Im interested in most periods of history in most countries. I do generally have a pet hate of talking about world war two , world war one and the british empire . Generally its been  done to death so much that my eyes start to glaze over , and so much bullshit has been spouted it becomes harder to seperate fact from fiction.



I have a particular interest though in both the continental and insular celts , from around 1000 bc to the reformation , scottish history as you would expect , and irish history.



Funnily enough i was reading an article by simon schama the other day , reffering to englishman samuel pepys and the plague in london , and i happened to think of you...









   









https://www.ft.com/content/279dee4a-740b-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca">https://www.ft.com/content/279dee4a-740 ... d274e920ca">https://www.ft.com/content/279dee4a-740b-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca

 :hattip



I have never really gotten into the ancient Brits, largely because most of the stuff seems to centre on Boudicca. As I recall Tacitus gave her a couple of thousands words and since then the industry has not looked back.



The problem to me is that writers such as Simon Schama start off with a theory and then try to prove it, which is fun if you are Simon Shama. I don't put much store by what he has to say, but he writes well and that is good enough for me. But I am tending more towards Judith Barker who does not really have a point but produces masses of fun gossip.

[Thomas]

I tried reading the Odyssey several times during my teens, believing it was 'the thing to do', but I didn't have the capacity for it. But I have enjoyed more digestible forms of the stories.

Same here. Believe it or not i got into history by my old grandpa teaching me a lot of stuff and taking me down to the library , and watching films like clash of the titans when the original came out in the early 80`s starring actor harry hamelin.



Interesting fact was many of the stories and gods in both greek roman celtic and even hindu forms were really the same stories retold across many different lands and cultures.

[Nalaar]

Im a particular fan of the classics as well nalaar , and especially ancient greece. Love the Iliad , odyssey and general greek mythology.

I tried reading the Odyssey several times during my teens, believing it was 'the thing to do', but I didn't have the capacity for it. But I have enjoyed more digestible forms of the stories.

[Thomas]

What Is History But a Fable Agreed Upon?

[papasmurf]

I like all history if it is accurate. Most of what I was taught at school has turned out to be a long way from being accurate.