What was it that stopped the use of double edged swords and made single edge, curved blades become popular?

An example of this are the cutlasses pirates used in the 17th century. Why was it they didn't use double edged swords, pirates clearly would have had knowledge of them from the British empire?

EDIT:Did it have anything to do with the increasing prevalence of firearms in battle?

My understanding of early European law is that there were a handful of laws only that dealt mostly with serfs. Was there a time when justice was served by local lords that would 'wing it' and basically decide the verdict and punishment of any trial? In TV a common trope is the king or lord will hold court and hear grievances and then do whatever the feel like. Did this actually exist and how did this change into a codified legal system with at least an attempt at fairness?

Wikipedia is pretty vague. Was divorce easily available to all classes of people, or was it mostly for the rich? Since women could, during some periods, initiate divorce, how often did they, and did their families usually take them back or could they strike out on their own? What happened to children?

Basically, I am curious about the relationship between religions in 10th century Byzantium specifically as it pertains to the Scandinavian members of the guard.

Bonus question: are there any members of the guard that went on to become close friends of the emperor? I would be curious for any stories of specific guardsmen.

Twisting up the theme, excluding the obvious moral points of focus, would a regular 19th century Russian have access to pawnbrokers? Does the sentence the protagonist gets an accurate depiction of the punishments one would receive after committing murder in the 1800s? Is his cramped conditions an accurate depiction of the citizenry of St Petersburg?

What was their perceived best-case scenario? If the war had gone according to plan, is there any evidence that they hoped to invade the US, or were they just trying to end US interdiction in the Pacific. Capturing Hawaii and US territories in the Pacific doesn't seem out of the question, but a full scale invasion of the continental is another thing entirely. Would they have stood any chance of accomplishing this? Is there any record of this ever being discussed?

... as opposed to the South, of course. If not, what were the other reasons?

Sources would be highly appreciated as well if possible. Why do they consider or believe what the do and also; how many historians in general hold the same opinion?

Thank you

I was wondering this awhile ago, and it seemed interesting to think of how trans people were treated during the Stone Age. Were they shunned, or were they awkwardly placed into society with the same tasks, or anything else?

Just wow. This is like Ask Reddit for the people that really want to know.

Hi,

So I would like to know what is the most accredited/valued theory on where Germanic and Celtic people/speakers originated. Indo-Europeans are said to have originated in the Pontic and Ukrainian steppe regions, so it could be logical to assume that both groups where from there.

However, at what location or region did both groups become linguistically separate from each other? In other words, where did the Germanics and Celtics endure their respective ethnogeneses?

Thanks

I heard from some people that Soviets would charge into battle without rifles, and heard others say this is untrue, could I get confirmation?