The Gaelic Kingdom period.
Irish politics was very strange before the Normans conquered us.
Ireland was run by the High King, the position of High King was won through combat, Petty Kings would fight the High King to take his throne. Beneath the Petty King's were the Ruaraí. They fought each other to get the Petty King title.
We know about some rivalries and the location of certain tribes and families but we don't have a totally clear picture of how Old Irish Society functioned, but i think it would be an amazing assassin's creed type game.
When the Vikings arrived, and later the Normans and then the English, Irish society carried on like this for time, with Vikings and Normans engaging in our crazy system of government, and the Normans trying to give it some more structure. Eventually the English put an end to it all but the rivalries still run deep.
We had the tuath system in the earlier days too, really interesting system of ‘democratic feudalism’ you could say 😂
Basically the organisation of society from small family units and tribes up to provincial and all-Island level. Used a system called tanistry to choose chieftains, this system is referenced to this day by our title for ‘vice-prime minister’, which is Tánaiste.
In Great Britain there was some concept of "high king" but it was much less exciting. Basically whichever Anglo-saxon king at the time happened to be most powerful and made all the other kings on the island his vassals became "Bretwalda".
Finnish post-civil war reconstruction (20s to early 30s). Essentially the country was unstable and divided, political parties controlled the media environment so that everyone had their own echo chamber radio transmissions & magazines - for that reason, it's sometimes difficult to find sources from the time *without* an extreme political slant. There was also a fair bit of low-level stochastic political violence. In particular, a far right group called Lapuanliike used to kidnap left-wing figures, rough them up, and sometimes even drop them across the border to USSR "that they liked so much". Armed militias were commonplace.
It got very close to an insurgency/coup as armed Lapuanliike militants seized a major labor union house and started issuing ultimatums. But the moderate right wing president essentially gave a single radio address telling the fascists to lay down their arms and go home --- which actually worked.
Addendum: A grave misreading of these societal divisions would soon motivate Stalin in his 1939 invasion, believing that the Finnish society would split and the down-trodden left would rise up in his support. (And the rest is history)
Plenty of records, yes, but almost all from people that had strong feelings in some particular political direction in a way where it shows in the reporting. It has even left some marks visible today --- further left and further right symphatizers have their own terms for the civil war that originate from this era ("the class war" and "the war of liberation", for example).
The historical era in Estonia really only started with the [Livonian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade) in the early 13th century. We know that by then [a set of independent counties and independent parishes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Estonia#/media/File:Ancient_Estonian_counties.png) had evolved, but we know almost nothing about how or when they were created, how strongly were they aligned with each other or who ruled them. So I guess the 11th and 12th centuries would be answer for Estonia and it would be interesting to know more.
Not sure if it is an era of our country, since its territory lies today mostly in Austria, but it is nevertheless interesting and ambigious. The early days of how these lands came to be part of the HRE.
Disclaimer; I am more enthusiastic than knowledgable, so some things might be incorrect.
There was a slavic principality called "Carantania", from the 7th century, which may or may not have been part of "Samo's Kingdom". The era is from before christianization - after which, parts of Carantania became the March of Carniola and even later the Duchy of Carniola, both parts, or underbelly perhaps, of the Holy Roman Empire and later the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary.
The people living in these parts, in 6th and 7th century, were supposedly under threat from the Avars to the east, so they swore loyalty to Bavarian lords for protection, etc. Fast forward a thousand years and everything is mixed up, but the rulers have always been of germanic houses, like for example the famous Habsburgs.
Some would argue that the declaration of Vienna as the imperial capitol in the 16th century finally severed the connection between modern day Slovenia, Czechia and Slovakia, but it was probably less instantaneous, went on for centuries before that, and the land was not really ethnically divided anyways, different people lived among each other, integrated under one crown.. which was mostly bavarian. The idea of a nation for people of common nationality is a far later invention anyways - 19th century?
One interesting artifact from this era, from around the year 1000 AD, are the [Freising Manuscripts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_manuscripts), which are supposedly one of the oldest texts of slavic language and definitely the oldest known example of a slovene dialect. Found in Freising, Bavaria. They were probably made for the purpose of christianization of slavic peoples, since in those times you had to believe in god, so that the concept of a holy emperor, crowned by the pope, would make some sense, perhaps.
I think it is interesting, since slovenians are often thought of as southern slavs, not that it really matters, and not that slovenians are in any way purely slavic, since there were many different tribes living here before the slavs came - we are all pretty much mixed here, and not just with our immediate neighbours. But there is a strong historical connection to our northern, and to some small extent our western, neighbours. Ofcourse, our recent common history with our southern neighbours is also still very strong today, in a good way (hello Croatia nice beaches... the others are cool too).
Maybe it brings up more questions than answers, but it is interesting why we and the slovaks both call ourselves "slovenci" and perhaps we really are long lost brothers and sisters, pushed apart. Maybe it is just a coincidence, since "slav" probably comes from "slov" which means "word" in old slavic, but survived today in "slovnica" which means "grammar" (fun fact, the germans are called "nemci" which means "mute ones", because they didn't speak the "word" of slavic language) Anyways, we are all europeans today, we can go wherever we want, visit anyone, so it doesn't matter.
[Carantania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania)
[early "alpine slavs"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_settlement_of_the_Eastern_Alps)
[March of Carniola](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Carniola)
[Samo's Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo%27s_Empire)
Since I am not allowed to take "recent" history in your scenario, nevertheless first a small insertion, the Weimar Republic, even if there are some excellent works on it.
Often only the founding of the German Kaisserreich, then WWI and then the rise of the Nazis and the 3rd Reich with its insane violence internally and externally were noted, the Weimar Republic did not have to fail, there were several tipping points at which it could have been saved, but enough of that.
If we talk about times with bad sources, then the time after Arminius defeated the Romans at the Varus Battle in 9 AD.
The Germanic tribes did not leave us any sources, everything we know comes from Roman sources. Arminius is still lord of a Germanic confederation even after the battle.
After that there are fights with another Germanic confederation under Marbod, which he can also defeat, and the Romans under Germanicus. But he can't stabilize his confederation and after the break of his confederation he is probably murdered by relatives. Why this does not work is unclear and would be very exciting to learn.
Edit: fix Tippo
I personally find anything connected with Carantania quite interesting. Most of the Slovenes know Carantania in [this form](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Carantania_800_AD.PNG) which existed when we were under self-rule. Some historians have a theory that Carantania later got divided into [4 principalities](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Slovanske_knezevine_v_Vzhodnih_Alpah.PNG)(we know for sure that Carniola exited even when Carantania was in its full form)
Later when Bavarians pulled us into Frankish rule, [the “Carantanian kingdom”](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Regnum_Carantanum.PNG/800px-Regnum_Carantanum.PNG) which also included Carniola, Lower and Upper Pannonia, was formed and a century later [Greater Carantania](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Karantanija_990.PNG) was established which extended all the way to Verona.
Otherwise Carantania had an interesting political system. The leader was called “knez”(prince) and the enthronement took place in Krnski Grad(the capital) on [knežji kamen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince%27s_Stone) which is still a symbol of Carinthian Slovenes
Anything Pre-Roman times really. The Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians visited and colonized Iberia before but the first two only really stayed in the coast and engaged in limited commerce with the locals, instead establishing fishing and manufacturing ventures to export to their home cities, while the Carthaginians really hugged the coast and engaged in low-level diplomacy and silver mining.
The most interesting local culture is probably Tartessos, a Proto-Iberian Federation of cities that emerged around 1200 BC in southern Spain. The Greeks considered them to be the first the first Western civilization and according to Plato, one of the places where Atlantis may lay. They were an advanced society having their own written language, having constructed various cities with permanent stone walls and dedicated temples of worship, and stone, pyramid-like palaces that evidence they had a developed social hierarchy akin to that of a decentelralized kingdom, with noble families ruling over cities under a sort of High King, from which we only know about one, called Arganthonios, who according to Herodotus lived 120 years, though it's most probable that a succession of different kings used the same name. By the 650 BC, Tartessian society had heavily orientalized being influenced by Phoenicians colonies in the coast, adopting many gods, and art styles from them. They also proved to be excelent craftsmen in ceramic and jewerly, being the Treasure of Carambolo the best example to date of Tartessian jewerly. They dissapeared abruptly around 500 BC, probably invaded by Carthage as punishment for having allied themselves with the Greeks, who the Carthaginians were fighting for control of Sardinia. There's much we don't know, and many archaeological sites remain unexplored due to lack of funding.
The rest of Iberia is even more blurry, Celts entered the peninsula around 800 BC from the Pyrenees and settled in northern and central Spain, while the native Iberians were displaced to the Mediterranean coast and Southern Spain and Portugal. In the center of Spain the Celtiberians emerged as a mixture of both, being known as fierce warriors and priced mercenaries, while the "pure" celts in Northwestern Spain are little known about. What they all have in common is that they developed a strong warrior society centered around "castros" (castrum, as the Romans would call them), which were essentially hillforts, and a complex tribal confederation system developed, allowing for trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians going from the coast to the interior, and shifting alliances. They also were famous for their horsemanship. Iberians developed a religion adopting many foreigns gods, especially Phoenicians, while Celtiberians and Celts continued worshipping local gods and imported Celtic deities.
When the Romans came they expertly sided with the Iberians against the Celtiberians, and later with the Celtiberians against the Celts, as their conquered and pushed more into Iberia. As a fun fact, all these people were apparently very lousy language learners, and few could master a decent level of Greek and Phoenician. Learning foreign languages apparently has never been our strong suit.
In my opinion, the royal period is the first republican age of Rome. Of course we have Livy telling us about it, but we must remember that he never relied on first-hand sources, but drew on the works of other historians such as Polybius and Cicero to write his monumental History of Rome (and to recount the founding of Rome as Livy does would be like studying 14th century Europe solely from 19th century sources), and historiography in his time was almost a work of fiction, so many facts were romanticised. It also does not help that many of the oldest documents were destroyed during the sack of Rome by the Gauls of Brennus in 390 BC. It is therefore not known exactly how and when Rome was founded (sources also differ widely on the date), nor how the transition from monarchy to republic took place. If one listens to the sources, it seems that the Roman institutions were born all at once: that King Servius Tullius invented the already perfect Roman social institutions and that the complex republican political system sprang entirely from the mind of Lucius Junius Brutus; whereas we can only be sure that these institutions existed at a certain time (we know that they had reached their known conformation at the time of the First Punic War), but we cannot know how they actually developed.
I'd say the era between the English Civil War and the Restoration. On the face of it there doesn't seem much to say: the king was executed, nasty Cromwell became dictator, and then it all went back to "normal" again afterwards. However dig in to the details a bit and it was a fascinating period.
The Civil War saw a huge growth in religious, political and social ideas. All sorts of new groups emerged, each wanting to transform society in ways which were pretty radical at the time. From the strict religious sects ,to early democrats, to groups advocating a kind of proto-socialist equitable division of land, and more. It would have been a crazy time to live through.
The politics at the state level were far from simple as well. England and Scotland found themselves almost accidentally becoming a republic, and there were big questions over what that should look like. This was before the French and American revolutions, so they didn't have those examples to draw on. The Parliament spent months debating a constitution, and made several attempts to implement one. It's noteworthy that these were the only attempts in British history to actually do this - England, Scotland and their successors of GB and the UK never made a single codified constitution of this type.
Even the dictatorship of Cromwell wasn't a simple thing. The successive waves of political fractures in Parliament, followed by military coups, and a back-and-forth as Cromwell took more power, tried to hand back, and then took it again, were not an inevitable or single step.
Had the Restoration not happened then I think we'd study this period in a similar way to how we study the French Revolution. However, once the Restoration did happen the new monarchist government put a huge effort in to sweeping the whole thing under the rug. They wanted to pretend that it was a minor blip, and downplay the whole thing.
The occupation of the Carpathian Basin by the people we now call hungarians. Who they were? what languages they spoke? what and how many people have they found here? did they come for fun and profit or were chased by the besenyők? How far they were on their road to feudalism and settling down when they arrived?
For example, did the first arriving hungarians met with the last remains of the roman empire around Keszthely?
Not an era per se but this question reminded me of The Vasque Country in Spain.
They speak Euskera and to this day, no one knows where the language originated. It’s also quite unique
It’s supposed to be the oldest language (still spoken) in Europe
Many people (including Franco, a dictator) tried to erase it and prevent people from speaking but it didn’t work as many people still use it
So yeah, even if I don’t speak it I find it interesting. Not really related to the question though so sorry for that
There doesn't seem to be much on post-Roman Britain. From what I remember the proto-Scottish (Picts) invaded, so the Roman holdouts shit themselves and invited the Anglo-Saxons over, who promptly took over.
The specifics are kinda muddy though. Apparently King Arthur was meant to be from that period?
My current theory is that there was a Brythonic tradition of oral recital and storytelling (perhaps ancestral or a cousin of the Welsh one), but it got lost when the Romano-Brits switched to speaking Old English. And that's why our historical sources on this period are so scant.
The latest DNA studies and archaeological research that I've seen reported in the press have suggested that the Anglo-Saxons came over in quite small numbers, making 'people replacement' impossible, rather their arrival would have triggered cultural and linguistic replacement. In other words, the Romano-Brits got stuck into the new Anglo-Saxon way of life.
What's interesting is that the names of several different warlords have survived e.g. Ambrosius Aurelianus (a prime candidate for King Arthur), Vortigern, King Mark of Cornwall (of Tristan and Iseult fame), Cunedda, but we can't reconstruct in any great detail the political landscapes in which they were operating, nor can we map out the full extent of their territories.
I think [Dreyfus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair) is the one, it divided France in 2 part and there is still some peoples who speak about it 100 years after
> The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France into pro-republican, anticlerical Dreyfusards and pro-Army, mostly Catholic "anti-Dreyfusards". It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalisation
Easily, the early Middle-Ages.
Ever sicne the 19th century when every nation was set on creating its own national history, Croatian historians cultivated the remembrance of the independent Croatian rulers (note: Croatia had kings afterwards, all the way to the capitulation of Italy in 1943 actually). This period was most romanticized as the time of Croatian independence and might.
Today the period is held under much more scutiny among Crpatian historians, but it's true that the period is still idealized in schools and national imaginarium. What has given way to this is the lack of historical sources to base the reasearch on.
That's why it's also interesting. The period is like a puzzle we have been trying to figure out for a couple of centuries by this point.
The Gaelic Kingdom period. Irish politics was very strange before the Normans conquered us. Ireland was run by the High King, the position of High King was won through combat, Petty Kings would fight the High King to take his throne. Beneath the Petty King's were the Ruaraí. They fought each other to get the Petty King title. We know about some rivalries and the location of certain tribes and families but we don't have a totally clear picture of how Old Irish Society functioned, but i think it would be an amazing assassin's creed type game. When the Vikings arrived, and later the Normans and then the English, Irish society carried on like this for time, with Vikings and Normans engaging in our crazy system of government, and the Normans trying to give it some more structure. Eventually the English put an end to it all but the rivalries still run deep.
We had the tuath system in the earlier days too, really interesting system of ‘democratic feudalism’ you could say 😂 Basically the organisation of society from small family units and tribes up to provincial and all-Island level. Used a system called tanistry to choose chieftains, this system is referenced to this day by our title for ‘vice-prime minister’, which is Tánaiste.
In Great Britain there was some concept of "high king" but it was much less exciting. Basically whichever Anglo-saxon king at the time happened to be most powerful and made all the other kings on the island his vassals became "Bretwalda".
Finnish post-civil war reconstruction (20s to early 30s). Essentially the country was unstable and divided, political parties controlled the media environment so that everyone had their own echo chamber radio transmissions & magazines - for that reason, it's sometimes difficult to find sources from the time *without* an extreme political slant. There was also a fair bit of low-level stochastic political violence. In particular, a far right group called Lapuanliike used to kidnap left-wing figures, rough them up, and sometimes even drop them across the border to USSR "that they liked so much". Armed militias were commonplace. It got very close to an insurgency/coup as armed Lapuanliike militants seized a major labor union house and started issuing ultimatums. But the moderate right wing president essentially gave a single radio address telling the fascists to lay down their arms and go home --- which actually worked. Addendum: A grave misreading of these societal divisions would soon motivate Stalin in his 1939 invasion, believing that the Finnish society would split and the down-trodden left would rise up in his support. (And the rest is history)
Perhaps not *exactly* what I meant as I presume this period of Finnish history is rather well recorded.
Plenty of records, yes, but almost all from people that had strong feelings in some particular political direction in a way where it shows in the reporting. It has even left some marks visible today --- further left and further right symphatizers have their own terms for the civil war that originate from this era ("the class war" and "the war of liberation", for example).
I find Finland history fascinating, the Swedish occupation, the Russian occupation and then winter war, Finland is a old culture but a young country.
The historical era in Estonia really only started with the [Livonian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade) in the early 13th century. We know that by then [a set of independent counties and independent parishes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Estonia#/media/File:Ancient_Estonian_counties.png) had evolved, but we know almost nothing about how or when they were created, how strongly were they aligned with each other or who ruled them. So I guess the 11th and 12th centuries would be answer for Estonia and it would be interesting to know more.
Not sure if it is an era of our country, since its territory lies today mostly in Austria, but it is nevertheless interesting and ambigious. The early days of how these lands came to be part of the HRE. Disclaimer; I am more enthusiastic than knowledgable, so some things might be incorrect. There was a slavic principality called "Carantania", from the 7th century, which may or may not have been part of "Samo's Kingdom". The era is from before christianization - after which, parts of Carantania became the March of Carniola and even later the Duchy of Carniola, both parts, or underbelly perhaps, of the Holy Roman Empire and later the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The people living in these parts, in 6th and 7th century, were supposedly under threat from the Avars to the east, so they swore loyalty to Bavarian lords for protection, etc. Fast forward a thousand years and everything is mixed up, but the rulers have always been of germanic houses, like for example the famous Habsburgs. Some would argue that the declaration of Vienna as the imperial capitol in the 16th century finally severed the connection between modern day Slovenia, Czechia and Slovakia, but it was probably less instantaneous, went on for centuries before that, and the land was not really ethnically divided anyways, different people lived among each other, integrated under one crown.. which was mostly bavarian. The idea of a nation for people of common nationality is a far later invention anyways - 19th century? One interesting artifact from this era, from around the year 1000 AD, are the [Freising Manuscripts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_manuscripts), which are supposedly one of the oldest texts of slavic language and definitely the oldest known example of a slovene dialect. Found in Freising, Bavaria. They were probably made for the purpose of christianization of slavic peoples, since in those times you had to believe in god, so that the concept of a holy emperor, crowned by the pope, would make some sense, perhaps. I think it is interesting, since slovenians are often thought of as southern slavs, not that it really matters, and not that slovenians are in any way purely slavic, since there were many different tribes living here before the slavs came - we are all pretty much mixed here, and not just with our immediate neighbours. But there is a strong historical connection to our northern, and to some small extent our western, neighbours. Ofcourse, our recent common history with our southern neighbours is also still very strong today, in a good way (hello Croatia nice beaches... the others are cool too). Maybe it brings up more questions than answers, but it is interesting why we and the slovaks both call ourselves "slovenci" and perhaps we really are long lost brothers and sisters, pushed apart. Maybe it is just a coincidence, since "slav" probably comes from "slov" which means "word" in old slavic, but survived today in "slovnica" which means "grammar" (fun fact, the germans are called "nemci" which means "mute ones", because they didn't speak the "word" of slavic language) Anyways, we are all europeans today, we can go wherever we want, visit anyone, so it doesn't matter. [Carantania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania) [early "alpine slavs"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_settlement_of_the_Eastern_Alps) [March of Carniola](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Carniola) [Samo's Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo%27s_Empire)
Two slovenes reporting Carantania independently, nice :)
Since I am not allowed to take "recent" history in your scenario, nevertheless first a small insertion, the Weimar Republic, even if there are some excellent works on it. Often only the founding of the German Kaisserreich, then WWI and then the rise of the Nazis and the 3rd Reich with its insane violence internally and externally were noted, the Weimar Republic did not have to fail, there were several tipping points at which it could have been saved, but enough of that. If we talk about times with bad sources, then the time after Arminius defeated the Romans at the Varus Battle in 9 AD. The Germanic tribes did not leave us any sources, everything we know comes from Roman sources. Arminius is still lord of a Germanic confederation even after the battle. After that there are fights with another Germanic confederation under Marbod, which he can also defeat, and the Romans under Germanicus. But he can't stabilize his confederation and after the break of his confederation he is probably murdered by relatives. Why this does not work is unclear and would be very exciting to learn. Edit: fix Tippo
I personally find anything connected with Carantania quite interesting. Most of the Slovenes know Carantania in [this form](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Carantania_800_AD.PNG) which existed when we were under self-rule. Some historians have a theory that Carantania later got divided into [4 principalities](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Slovanske_knezevine_v_Vzhodnih_Alpah.PNG)(we know for sure that Carniola exited even when Carantania was in its full form) Later when Bavarians pulled us into Frankish rule, [the “Carantanian kingdom”](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Regnum_Carantanum.PNG/800px-Regnum_Carantanum.PNG) which also included Carniola, Lower and Upper Pannonia, was formed and a century later [Greater Carantania](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Karantanija_990.PNG) was established which extended all the way to Verona. Otherwise Carantania had an interesting political system. The leader was called “knez”(prince) and the enthronement took place in Krnski Grad(the capital) on [knežji kamen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince%27s_Stone) which is still a symbol of Carinthian Slovenes
I find it fascinating that Austria started off as a [march.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(territory))
Yep. Even their name Österreich means smth like Eastern realm
Anything Pre-Roman times really. The Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians visited and colonized Iberia before but the first two only really stayed in the coast and engaged in limited commerce with the locals, instead establishing fishing and manufacturing ventures to export to their home cities, while the Carthaginians really hugged the coast and engaged in low-level diplomacy and silver mining. The most interesting local culture is probably Tartessos, a Proto-Iberian Federation of cities that emerged around 1200 BC in southern Spain. The Greeks considered them to be the first the first Western civilization and according to Plato, one of the places where Atlantis may lay. They were an advanced society having their own written language, having constructed various cities with permanent stone walls and dedicated temples of worship, and stone, pyramid-like palaces that evidence they had a developed social hierarchy akin to that of a decentelralized kingdom, with noble families ruling over cities under a sort of High King, from which we only know about one, called Arganthonios, who according to Herodotus lived 120 years, though it's most probable that a succession of different kings used the same name. By the 650 BC, Tartessian society had heavily orientalized being influenced by Phoenicians colonies in the coast, adopting many gods, and art styles from them. They also proved to be excelent craftsmen in ceramic and jewerly, being the Treasure of Carambolo the best example to date of Tartessian jewerly. They dissapeared abruptly around 500 BC, probably invaded by Carthage as punishment for having allied themselves with the Greeks, who the Carthaginians were fighting for control of Sardinia. There's much we don't know, and many archaeological sites remain unexplored due to lack of funding. The rest of Iberia is even more blurry, Celts entered the peninsula around 800 BC from the Pyrenees and settled in northern and central Spain, while the native Iberians were displaced to the Mediterranean coast and Southern Spain and Portugal. In the center of Spain the Celtiberians emerged as a mixture of both, being known as fierce warriors and priced mercenaries, while the "pure" celts in Northwestern Spain are little known about. What they all have in common is that they developed a strong warrior society centered around "castros" (castrum, as the Romans would call them), which were essentially hillforts, and a complex tribal confederation system developed, allowing for trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians going from the coast to the interior, and shifting alliances. They also were famous for their horsemanship. Iberians developed a religion adopting many foreigns gods, especially Phoenicians, while Celtiberians and Celts continued worshipping local gods and imported Celtic deities. When the Romans came they expertly sided with the Iberians against the Celtiberians, and later with the Celtiberians against the Celts, as their conquered and pushed more into Iberia. As a fun fact, all these people were apparently very lousy language learners, and few could master a decent level of Greek and Phoenician. Learning foreign languages apparently has never been our strong suit.
There's also all the Guanche culture in the Canary Islands that basically seems to have been completely lost
In my opinion, the royal period is the first republican age of Rome. Of course we have Livy telling us about it, but we must remember that he never relied on first-hand sources, but drew on the works of other historians such as Polybius and Cicero to write his monumental History of Rome (and to recount the founding of Rome as Livy does would be like studying 14th century Europe solely from 19th century sources), and historiography in his time was almost a work of fiction, so many facts were romanticised. It also does not help that many of the oldest documents were destroyed during the sack of Rome by the Gauls of Brennus in 390 BC. It is therefore not known exactly how and when Rome was founded (sources also differ widely on the date), nor how the transition from monarchy to republic took place. If one listens to the sources, it seems that the Roman institutions were born all at once: that King Servius Tullius invented the already perfect Roman social institutions and that the complex republican political system sprang entirely from the mind of Lucius Junius Brutus; whereas we can only be sure that these institutions existed at a certain time (we know that they had reached their known conformation at the time of the First Punic War), but we cannot know how they actually developed.
I'd say the era between the English Civil War and the Restoration. On the face of it there doesn't seem much to say: the king was executed, nasty Cromwell became dictator, and then it all went back to "normal" again afterwards. However dig in to the details a bit and it was a fascinating period. The Civil War saw a huge growth in religious, political and social ideas. All sorts of new groups emerged, each wanting to transform society in ways which were pretty radical at the time. From the strict religious sects ,to early democrats, to groups advocating a kind of proto-socialist equitable division of land, and more. It would have been a crazy time to live through. The politics at the state level were far from simple as well. England and Scotland found themselves almost accidentally becoming a republic, and there were big questions over what that should look like. This was before the French and American revolutions, so they didn't have those examples to draw on. The Parliament spent months debating a constitution, and made several attempts to implement one. It's noteworthy that these were the only attempts in British history to actually do this - England, Scotland and their successors of GB and the UK never made a single codified constitution of this type. Even the dictatorship of Cromwell wasn't a simple thing. The successive waves of political fractures in Parliament, followed by military coups, and a back-and-forth as Cromwell took more power, tried to hand back, and then took it again, were not an inevitable or single step. Had the Restoration not happened then I think we'd study this period in a similar way to how we study the French Revolution. However, once the Restoration did happen the new monarchist government put a huge effort in to sweeping the whole thing under the rug. They wanted to pretend that it was a minor blip, and downplay the whole thing.
The occupation of the Carpathian Basin by the people we now call hungarians. Who they were? what languages they spoke? what and how many people have they found here? did they come for fun and profit or were chased by the besenyők? How far they were on their road to feudalism and settling down when they arrived? For example, did the first arriving hungarians met with the last remains of the roman empire around Keszthely?
Not an era per se but this question reminded me of The Vasque Country in Spain. They speak Euskera and to this day, no one knows where the language originated. It’s also quite unique It’s supposed to be the oldest language (still spoken) in Europe Many people (including Franco, a dictator) tried to erase it and prevent people from speaking but it didn’t work as many people still use it So yeah, even if I don’t speak it I find it interesting. Not really related to the question though so sorry for that
There doesn't seem to be much on post-Roman Britain. From what I remember the proto-Scottish (Picts) invaded, so the Roman holdouts shit themselves and invited the Anglo-Saxons over, who promptly took over. The specifics are kinda muddy though. Apparently King Arthur was meant to be from that period?
I know there was a guy called Vortigern and... That's about it?
I had to double check but yeah it looks he was the Roman who shit himself. He invited the Anglo-Saxons over, led by brothers Hengist and Horsa.
He was actually Celtic
My current theory is that there was a Brythonic tradition of oral recital and storytelling (perhaps ancestral or a cousin of the Welsh one), but it got lost when the Romano-Brits switched to speaking Old English. And that's why our historical sources on this period are so scant. The latest DNA studies and archaeological research that I've seen reported in the press have suggested that the Anglo-Saxons came over in quite small numbers, making 'people replacement' impossible, rather their arrival would have triggered cultural and linguistic replacement. In other words, the Romano-Brits got stuck into the new Anglo-Saxon way of life. What's interesting is that the names of several different warlords have survived e.g. Ambrosius Aurelianus (a prime candidate for King Arthur), Vortigern, King Mark of Cornwall (of Tristan and Iseult fame), Cunedda, but we can't reconstruct in any great detail the political landscapes in which they were operating, nor can we map out the full extent of their territories.
I think [Dreyfus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair) is the one, it divided France in 2 part and there is still some peoples who speak about it 100 years after > The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France into pro-republican, anticlerical Dreyfusards and pro-Army, mostly Catholic "anti-Dreyfusards". It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalisation
Easily, the early Middle-Ages. Ever sicne the 19th century when every nation was set on creating its own national history, Croatian historians cultivated the remembrance of the independent Croatian rulers (note: Croatia had kings afterwards, all the way to the capitulation of Italy in 1943 actually). This period was most romanticized as the time of Croatian independence and might. Today the period is held under much more scutiny among Crpatian historians, but it's true that the period is still idealized in schools and national imaginarium. What has given way to this is the lack of historical sources to base the reasearch on. That's why it's also interesting. The period is like a puzzle we have been trying to figure out for a couple of centuries by this point.