Hello everyone!

Today we will be implementing a change to the submission rules, and will no longer be allowing questions which are asking for the specific instance of the 'First' or 'Last' iteration of a thing or phenomenon. These have been some of the most problematic questions that we get in this subreddit, and after some very lengthy discussion within the mod team, the decision has been made to add the following to our Rules Page:

No 'First'/'Last' Questions

Questions which specifically ask for the first or last known instance/example of an object/phenomenon/etc. will be removed. Past experience has shown these questions aren't well suited to /r/AskHistorians. Such questions often end up with speculative answers, either because the first simply wasn't recorded by history, or because answering the question requires historians to have detailed knowledge across numerous eras and specialties. Alternatively, if the question is answerable, it often doesn't lend itself to the detail and context we expect from answers on this subreddit. As such, these questions are banned.

We still welcome questions which ask about rises and falls in a general sense, so we request that users keep their questions focused on origins or declines. For example, a question such as "Who was the first person to kill someone else with a gun?" is a problematic one to answer - we may not even know the answer - but "What do we know about the early development and use of firearms?" covers the same ground, without the same issues.

For those who nevertheless are specifically looking for 'First'/'Last' answers, we do run a "Short Answers to Simple Questions" thread every other Wednesday where these questions are still allowed.

The wording of the rule should hopefully be somewhat self-explanatory as to its reason and application, but this is /r/AskHistorians, so we're going to break it down a little bit more for you below.

The most important thing to be aware of is that this rule will be applied fairly narrowly. The intent is to target a very specific class of questions which are quite ill-suited to the format of /r/AskHistorians. A question which, to use the example from above, asks "Who was the first person to kill someone else with a gun?" is going to be a problem whether there is a known answer or not. If we don't know, the threads quickly fill with speculative responses, or "The first one I know of" answers, which end up removed. If we do know - and this puts aside the additional issue of 'absolute' first versus 'first known' - the question can be answered in a mere sentence, i.e. "Liao Bao was the first person to be shot with a firearm, in 1257." But that simply creates more problems, as it comes in conflict with the rules and aim of the subreddit. An answer which would be allowed to stand would be one which at the very least provides background and context for his death. Taken together, this results in many threads which are the proverbial graveyard, and a disproportionate number which never receive an answer.

Generally speaking, our stated policy has always been to try and maintain a light touch with how questions are formulated and asked. As with the Example Seeking Rule, we do at times need to strike a balance when a specific type just becomes too troublesome - and that is what we are doing here. Our intention is not to entirely prevent these questions in a broader sense, but to ensure that they are better focused to comply with the format of the subreddit. As is made clear in the wording of the rule, and as will also be explained in the Removal Macro deployed in conjunction with enforcement, we want to encourage people to think about what the underlying topic of their question is, and strongly encourage people to resubmit the question to ask about the broader milieu. To return to the example, an answer to "What do we know about the early development and use of firearms?" would quite possibly include the answer to the original formulation if it is known, while certainly avoiding the speculation about that fact if it is not.

Conversely, when it comes to 'Last' questions, similar problems of course can crop up, but there is the additional issue of 'Fading out but not yet gone'. Something might have gone out of general use a long, long time ago, but still sees use in some limited form today, resulting in answers which blow past the 20 Year Rule. By having questions focus on 'Decline' instead of 'Last', it allows the questions to briefly touch on continued use to the present (which is allowable under the 20 Year Rule!) without entirely blowing by it and focusing solely on that (Which isn't!).

Between the 11th and 15th centuries, the English held large amounts of land in what is today France, like Aquitaine, Anjou, and Normandy. But were these territories considered part of the "Kingdom of France" at the time? I use "part of" loosely here since I'm aware that feudalism took much power away from the French kings anyway.

I know that this situation began in 1066 when William the Conqueror, who was Duke of Normandy, became King of England but also kept his old title. What I don't understand: the Duchy of Normandy (and later acquisitions like Aquitaine and Anjou) was originally a fief of the kings of France. How did this relationship change when a vassal of the French king became a king in his own right somewhere else?