Problem: Gaelic Ireland (Irish: Eire Ghaidhealach) was the Gaelic political and social order, and associated culture, that existed in Ireland from the prehistoric era until the early 17th century. Before the Norman invasion of 1169, Gaelic Ireland comprised the whole island. Thereafter, it comprised that part of the country not under foreign dominion at a given time. For most of its history, Gaelic Ireland was a "patchwork" hierarchy of territories ruled by a hierarchy of kings or chiefs, who were elected through tanistry.

Warfare was common in Gaelic Ireland, as territories fought for supremacy against each other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans. Champion warfare is a common theme in Irish mythology. In the Middle Ages all able-bodied men, apart from the learned and the clergy, were eligible for military service on behalf of the king or chief. Throughout the Middle Ages and for some time after, outsiders often wrote that the style of Irish warfare differed greatly from what they deemed to be the norm in Western Europe. The Gaelic Irish preferred hit-and-run raids (the crech), which involved catching the enemy unaware. If this worked they would then seize any valuables (mainly livestock) and potentially valuable hostages, burn the crops, and escape. The cattle raid was often called a Tain Bo in Gaelic literature. Although hit-and-run raiding was the preferred tactic in medieval times, there were also pitched battles. From at least the 11th century, kings maintained small permanent fighting forces known as "troops of the household", who were often given houses and land on the king's mensal land. These were well-equipped professional soldiers made up of infantry and cavalry. By the reign of Brian Boru, Irish kings were taking large armies on campaign over long distances and using naval forces in tandem with land forces.  A typical medieval Irish army included light infantry, heavy infantry and cavalry. The bulk of the army was made-up of light infantry called ceithern (anglicized 'kern'). The ceithern wandered Ireland offering their services for hire and usually wielded swords, skenes (a kind of long knife), short spears, bows and shields. The cavalry was usually made-up of a king or chieftain and his close relatives. They usually rode without saddles but wore armour and iron helmets and wielded swords, skenes and long spears or lances. One kind of Irish cavalry was the hobelar. After the Norman invasion there emerged a kind of heavy infantry called galloglaigh (anglicized 'gallo[w]glass'). They were originally Scottish mercenaries who appeared in the 13th century, but by the 15th century most large tuatha had their own hereditary force of Irish galloglaigh. Some Anglo-Norman lordships also began using galloglaigh in imitation of the Irish. They usually wore mail and iron helmets and wielded sparth axes, claymores, and sometimes spears or lances. The galloglaigh furnished the retreating plunderers with a "moving line of defence from which the horsemen could make short, sharp charges, and behind which they could retreat when pursued". As their armour made them less nimble, they were sometimes planted at strategic spots along the line of retreat. The kern, horsemen and galloglaigh had lightly-armed servants to carry their weapons into battle.  Warriors were sometimes rallied into battle by blowing horns and warpipes. According to Gerald de Barri (in the 12th century), they did not wear armour, as they deemed it burdensome to wear and "brave and honourable" to fight without it. Instead, most ordinary soldiers fought semi-naked and carried only their weapons and a small round shield--Spenser wrote that these shields were covered with leather and painted in bright colours. Kings and chiefs sometimes went into battle wearing helmets adorned with eagle feathers. For ordinary soldiers, their thick hair often served as a helmet, but they sometimes wore simple helmets made from animal hides.

What other tactics were they using to fight?

Answer with quotes: The Gaelic Irish preferred hit-and-run raids (the crech), which involved catching the enemy unaware.


Problem: Margaret Mead (December 16, 1901 - November 15, 1978) was an American cultural anthropologist who featured frequently as an author and speaker in the mass media during the 1960s and 1970s. She earned her bachelor's degree at Barnard College in New York City and her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University. Mead was a respected and often controversial academic who popularized the insights of anthropology in modern American and Western culture. Her reports detailing the attitudes towards sex in South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures influenced the 1960s sexual revolution.

After her death Mead's Samoan research was criticized by anthropologist Derek Freeman, who published a book that argued against many of Mead's conclusions. Freeman argued that Mead had misunderstood Samoan culture when she argued that Samoan culture did not place many restrictions on youths' sexual explorations. Freeman argued instead that Samoan culture prized female chastity and virginity and that Mead had been misled by her female Samoan informants. Freeman's critique was met with a considerable backlash and harsh criticism from the anthropology community, whereas it was received enthusiastically by communities of scientists who believed that sexual mores were more or less universal across cultures. Some anthropologists who studied Samoan culture argued in favor of Freeman's findings and contradicted those of Mead, whereas others argued that Freeman's work did not invalidate Mead's work because Samoan culture had been changed by the integration of Christianity in the decades between Mead's and Freeman's fieldwork periods. While Mead was careful to shield the identity of all her subjects for confidentiality Freeman was able to find and interview one of her original participants, and Freeman reported that she admitted to having wilfully misled Mead. She said that she and her friends were having fun with Mead and telling her stories.  On the whole, anthropologists have rejected the notion that Mead's conclusions rested on the validity of a single interview with a single person, finding instead that Mead based her conclusions on the sum of her observations and interviews during her time in Samoa, and that the status of the single interview did not falsify her work. Some anthropologists have however maintained that even though Freeman's critique was invalid, Mead's study was not sufficiently scientifically rigorous to support the conclusions she drew.  Mead's reputation and significance as an anthropologist have not been diminished by Freeman's criticisms. In her book Galileo's Middle Finger, Alice Dreger argues that Freeman's accusations were unfounded and misleading. A detailed review of the controversy by Paul Shankman, published by the University of Wisconsin Press in 2009, supports the contention that Mead's research was essentially correct, and concludes that Freeman cherry-picked his data and misrepresented both Mead and Samoan culture.

How was it taken?

Answer with quotes:
Freeman's critique was met with a considerable backlash and harsh criticism from the anthropology community,