I am asking about the period of the late 9th century, during King Alfred's conflict with the Vikings. Specifically I'm thinking of the fleet of ~120 boats belonging to Guthrum that sailed from Poole harbour to Exeter in 877, but were destroyed by a storm on the way.

I've encountered duels in novels written by Pushkin (who himself died due to wounds sustained in a duel), Lermontov (who died the same way, though in a different duel), Turgenev, and Dostoyevsky. Now, in those stories, it's usually upper class people dueling, and it's usually men fighting over a woman's "honor" or the honor of one of the duelists.

Now, a few romantic novels does not prove a historical pattern, so what's the reality? Were duels as widespread and destructive as these novels depict? If they were at all common, how far back do their roots go? Was ritualized dueling and imported practice? Was it just fancy military men and nobles who dueled, as is depicted in the novels? Or did people from a wider array of classes fight ritualized battles to the death over matters of honor?

While influence could be argued of who had more military power which clan held the most monetary power for most of the period?

The three big ones, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, all send out missionaries to convert other people to their religion. Why don't all religions do this? Why are there no Jewish missionaries? What keeps different religions from developing a "all people can achieve salvation if you join us" theology? It's not just religion; dying cultures can be kept going with converts, but not all groups are convert friendly.

There is the land bridge theory but how did it work? Are there any other theories?

This is a theory I've been mulling over for a while (note: I'm not a historian).

Essentially, it stems from the fact that three of the most artistically significant periods in Western history - Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy and Early Modern Germany - took place in regions where city states (or, at least, very small countries) were the order of the day, and competition between these states, and their courts, was especially common.

Essentially, I'd like to know if there are any other periods/regions where this has been borne out (no need to provide counter examples, I'm aware that those exist!), and I'd be especially interested to know if this is something that has been researched at all by a professional historian?

Thanks in advance.

Coming off a post about the most practical weapon, many users said that the Spear was the best candidate, or a variation of it. I found it curious however that the Helberd, which is arguably better in some areas, was not mentioned. Was the Halberd liked and used often? Or was it dropped in favour of simpler weapons?

So after a ship made it's delivery to Europe, I am assuming most then made a return trip to the US. I have a couple of questions regarding this.

1. What if anything did they carry on the way back to the US? Seems like it would be a waste to send them back empty, but I also can't imagine what might be sent back? Were there enough wounded soldiers and PoWs to fill them up? Did they bring back natural resources or other goods from the countries they delivered to?

2. On average how many times would a single troop transport or cargo vessel make the Atlantic crossing during the war?

I was thinking about the socioeconomic inequality that persists in the US, particularly with respect to African Americans, and I want to be able put it into a historical and international context. Has any oppressed minority group ever achieved real socioeconomic equality? I ask because if the answer is no, it provides valuable context and speaks to the difficulty inherent in overcoming various barriers. And if the answer is yes, I want to know what we can learn and how comparable the situations are. Thank you.

And by modern times, I mean in the last few hundred years maybe?

the wisest people I know and know of, all have or had good senses of humour.

Jesus carried many truths with him, some beautiful, some dark.

Is there any evidence of him being a funny guy?

I bet he was.

I have a Romanian friend who grew up in the 1980's outside of Timisoara. His parents were dissidents who had been involved in the opposition to Ceausescu for many years. He tells me that the Romanian revolution was really a coup d'etat orchestrated by the second-level officials with the support of Moscow--and most of what we saw on TV in the press was actually orchestrated by westerners. What was Moscow's relation with Ceaucescu at the time? Did Moscow play a secret role in organizing the revolution?

I'm doing a personal project (NOT a school/university/job homework!!!!!!) about the history of the dismantling of the HRE, but I can't find anything updated in my primary language (Brazilian Portuguese). Could you guys give me some books for me to read or a primary account of the time (in Portuguese or in English)? EDIT: Typos

I'm listening to Hardcore History, and Dan keeps talking about how the Schlieffen Plan ("if there was such a plan" he adds) has multiple people or groups claiming multiple things (the goal of the plan, how the plan was to be executed, stuff like that). Unfortunately, he doesn't go into detail regarding what part of the Schlieffen Plan is disputed/unknown/whatever. What parts of the plan do historians disagree on and why?

We have all learned about diseases from Europe that were spread to Native Americans upon first contact, but did the Native Americans pass any unique diseases back to the Europeans?

[deleted]

Basically, when petrol engine vehicles were first invented, how did people fuel them before there was a network of fueling stations for them? And/or why did people build widespread fueling stations before people had cars to use them?