I have a couple questions that all deal with the act of dueling for ones honor or for settling disputes throughout history.

When did dueling begin and was it limited to a certain class/gender or could anybody challenge anybody to defend their honor or settle a dispute?

What were the general rules of a duel? Was there any sort of written code duelists must follow or were the rules decided by some sort of mediator? Were there any rules that were not "written" but were common to follow to show respect for your opponent?

How were weapons chosen and did bare knuckle boxing ever occur in duels or was it considered too uncivilized to box in a duel?

How often did duels result in death (on the spot or from injuries)?

When was dueling phased out or is it still legal today in some parts of the world and who were the most successful/famous duelists throughout history?

Thanks :)

I don't know a whole lot about the beginnings of Christianity but it doesn't seem like that kind of ideology would appeal to a lot of people. And obviously later Christians were just as war hungry as any other religion. Was "Thou shalt not kill," a particularly powerful message for the time or did people follow him for other reasons. Specifically, I'm referring to the time when he was alive.

[deleted]

Could Europeans have invented the wheel independently of outside source? they had trade with many ancient societies so how could they have come up with it on their own?

I was marthoning GoT to prepare for the final season and noticed how much they drink wine, it seems like it’s by the gallons. We never really see anyone hung over or drunk, except Tyrion occasionally, I am wondering how strong (alcoholic) was Middle Ages wine ?

The British tank, the Comet, was in service from 1944-1958, but the German tank, the Leopard 2, lasted from 1979-today. Why is this?

*even in therapy?

What is historian's opinion of People's History of the US? I read it recently and I was a huge fan but I read a lot of criticisms of the book so I was just wondering how much of it is trustworthy historically speaking.

Some of the opinions I read were just calling it "anti-american" and I found that to be a profound misreading of the book. But I'm sure there are substantive criticisms of it and I'm just wondering what those are. Thanks for the help!

What is the origin of the stereotypical diner design? To be specific, the fake-chrome, neon lights, and gaudy jukebox look. It is obviously a deliberate style, and must be a relatively modern one because surviving older diners seem to look like the surrounding buildings.

The graffitied helmet cover has become somewhat of an iconic legacy from the Vietnam war. But why did military officials allow this to happen? Sure uniform regulations are often relaxed in combat, especially in tropical environments, but this is very different. The act itself is an affront to military codes of discipline and pride in appearance, especially considering many of the slogans were lewd, rebellious, and even political. How were the soldiers not reprimanded by their officers? I know some had poor control of their men in the later stages of the war, the worst cases epitomised by "fragging", while cannabis use is another legacy. But these were more "covert" offences, the helmet graffiti was deliberately blatant and consequently ubiquitous in media footage. Weren't officials concerned about their soldiers appearing like rebellious dissenters to the public?

Every reference you see says that Germany had to defeat/destroy the RAF before they could invade, because of the danger to the boats carrying the troops. However why couldn't their invasion boats cross the Channel with all the Luftwaffe planes flying in the air overhead, filling the sky and giving them cover, without having to first defeat the RAF? Why wouldn't this method have worked during either the day or night time?

Hello, as of late I have broadened my reading from my own fields into history a bit, and while I am enjoying it I am faced with a new challenge; When you read various books on controversial figures such as, say, Lenin, its hard not to feel that the biographer's opinions are always going to get in the way of the ideal goal of objectivity, sometimes more so, sometimes less so. What should I look for when choosing books? The authors academic credentials? Because it seems as if a lot of historical works are written by journalists and the like who don't necessarily have those. Is that always a de-merit?

Or, basically: How does one effectively go about judging the accuracy of a historical work? (Preferrably before reading them)

Sorry if this question is outside the boundaries of the subreddit's rules.

I can imagine some grumpy critic complaining about "what the youth is listening to these days".

Slavoj Žižek said he would vote for Donald Trump because he thinks it would hasten the collapse of capitalism rather than support someone who represents more of the same. I found a video of Chomsky calling out this behaviour as stupid and he cites left wing intellectuals doing the same for Mussolini. Is there any evidence for this actually happening?

Hello all!

I'm reading a book titled The Social History of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1945" by Pierre Ayçoberry, and in it I am in a section about the SS oranization. The book states that the schools planned to produce 500 officers every year in addition to other units, so I'm curious about where the money for all these huge projects came from. Hitler was new as chancellor at this time, so did he have enough power and money to fund basically a second army already?

This is a strange question, but I'm curious if the creation and analysis of imaginary medieval environments could have somehow given historians new, effective tools to understand actually existing medieval societies.

I am writing my dissertation for my final year of university about left-wing organisation in 1930s Britain (Labour, Communist Party, etc) and I have a section where I assess the parties' electoral successes/failures. I can get all election results at both the national and local level for all parties (big and small) on Wikipedia but this does not provide a source for where they got it from - I obviously cannot cite Wikipedia.

Does anyone know an official source for British elections in the 1930s, both national and local, including small parties?

I have asked my dissertation tutor and he is also stumped; searching gov.uk and databases I have access to through uni have also brought nothing.

Any help would be much appreciated, thank you!

This is how I see it:

1.-Similar geography, long narrow stretch of land

2.-The land was unified by a single government

3.-That government collapsed

4.-Because of its relative isolation, no outside power is able to take that land

5.-A myriad of different governments arised from the chaos. They are in near constant war with each other, leading to important improvements in military technology and administration

6.-Eventually there is a conscious and deliberate internal effort to unify the region under a single government. This effort is ultimately successful

Am I seeing things or are these valid comparisons about the patterns of history?

I found out Japanese is perhaps the largest ethnic group in Hawaii just now, and I was somewhat surprised. Was there some animosity in Japan toward those who emigrated?