Reputation
2,973
Top tag
Next privilege 3,500 Rep.
Protect questions
Badges
17 28
Impact
~61k people reached

Jul
6
awarded  Taxonomist
May
10
comment When were swords last used in European warfare?
Hah, that's a most interesting fact! Thanks for that. It seems he was an exceptional case though... a definite eccentric.
May
7
awarded  Popular Question
Mar
20
awarded  Good Question
Mar
19
comment How many recorded incidents are there of attacks on Australian soil?
@SamuelRussell: Yeah, I wouldn't disagree there. They were predominantly treated as subhuman, in a similar way as in the USA. I suppose another point is that there were definitely more Native Americans than Australian Aborigines before colonisation, but probably the biggest reason the Australian case gets so much less attention is that Australia has always been somehow less in the global public spotlight, and the USA has naturally gotten a huge amount of attention as the world superpower since the end of WWII.
Mar
19
awarded  Popular Question
Feb
23
comment When and where was salt as valuable as gold?
@WladimirPalant: It was more precious because they had a virtual monopoly on the trade!
Feb
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Dec
19
comment Why wasn't the Republic of Ireland invaded (by either side) in WW2?
@FelixGoldberg: Fair enough. We'll just agree to disagree then. I'll accept it's a slightly subjective term, and it's not always clear-cut who's a mercenary and not! :)
Dec
19
comment Why wasn't the Republic of Ireland invaded (by either side) in WW2?
@FelixGoldberg: Thanks, but it's not technically wrong... Irish soldiers were paid and enticed by the British government to fight for them.
Dec
17
comment Which country traces its roots back to the oldest civilization?
@Anixx: Too little is known about that culture, I believe. It would be too much of a stretch to call it a genuine civilisation, in any cases, at present. Most likely what "civilised" aspects it did pick up were from the contact of Indo-European peoples with the advanced Middle-Eastern cultures at the time.
Dec
16
awarded  Pundit
Dec
15
comment Why wasn't the Republic of Ireland invaded (by either side) in WW2?
@mgb: I strongly dispute those connotations. There is no negative stigma attached to being a "mercenary" in general. Yes, many Irish soldiers may have believed in the Allies' cause more than the Nazi's, but I think that is secondary. Don't forget that Ireland harboured many Nazi sympathisers, and there were even some politicians among them! And Ireland wasn't the only country mind you. Before the war, they were relatively prominent even in the UK and USA in particular.
Dec
15
comment Why wasn't the Republic of Ireland invaded (by either side) in WW2?
@mgb: They were paid, and it was completely voluntary whether to join the British army; thus they were definitely mercenaries!
Dec
10
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
28
awarded  Nice Question
Nov
4
comment Why did Austronesian/Polynesian people not colonize Australia?
@DVK: Sure, but how much depth does it go into? Also, what citations does it provide? I'd like to dig up evidence to support my side of the case, but I suspect it won't be easy. The truth may also be more subtle.
Nov
4
comment Why did Austronesian/Polynesian people not colonize Australia?
@DVK: I hate that that book pervades amateur/layman history and anthropology so thoroughly these days. Indeed, scholarly criticism of it has been far-reaching and severe in some cases. Certainly, it cannot be used as an only source. I maintain my point that the Maori were not particularly warlike in the (distant?) past... though perhaps I have misremembered completely!
Nov
4
comment How did ethnic Turkish people embrace Islam?
@NewAlexandria: Yeah true, but I'm not a history scholar... and scholars have the past had fewer reservations about the word. ;) Animism is possibly a better more precise term. Also, "shamanism" appears to be a loanword (via a series of intermediaries) ultimately from Sanskrit.
Nov
1
comment What were the reasons that the British colonies in North America rebelled but not others?
@JoeHobbit: That's true, though by that point Canada had already been significantly weakened as a global power and was approaching bankruptcy thanks to prodigal spending over the past 50 years, I believe. France still retained most of the "New France" territories when it ceded the Canadian ones to Britain and the American ones to Spain (roughly). So yeah, I think it would be fair to say France just cut their losses and accepted the unfavourable terms of the Treaty of Paris.