From what I've been reading on the subject, much of modern scholarship seems to discount the stories of wide ranging persecutions of Iconophiles in the empire under Leo III and Constantine V (such as the mass burnings of Icons purported to have occurred in Leo's reign, and the removal of the Icon from the Chalke Gate), while admitting that -especially in the latter years of Constantine V's reign- there was some attacks of monks and other non conformers. Aside from removing icons from churches and other public places there doesn't seem to be much in the way of changing the habits of the citizens in the period of Iconomachy. I guess I'm really asking what happened to the average Joe during Iconoclasm? What did it mean for people not of the clergy or aristocracy?

Primarily focused on the first period of Iconoclasm for this.

Sorry if that's all rather jumbled.

When you see the onboard films of these dogfights, there is a lot of metal flying around, often over land. This does not include badly aimed bombs or secondary explosions (such as gas mains or ammo/fuel dumps). This just isn't a statistic that I've seen.

Since a large part of marriage is to create legitimate heirs, would peasants get legally/religiously married even though they didn't have anything to inherit? Or was it more of a common law sort of thing, where you didn't do anything officially, but still accept each other as spouses?

My friend suggested that Truman could have targeted Mt. Fuji (though he didn't realize its proximity to Tokyo) in an effort to demonstrate nuclear capability without the ethical or moral dilemma of bombing major cities. Somewhere like Hokkaido or off the coast might be appropriate, I suppose.

I know the Nazis made preparations for one, but it never seemed to have materialized. Why not?

I apologize, I don't know all the different names for the sects of Judaism. But generally, what holy books throughout history are considered more sacred and why?

Was it a response to sales tax? A way to try to undercut competitors?

Would Cleopatra have heard news of the Roman conquest of Gaul? Would earlier Hellenic kings have been aware of anything north of the Alps and west of Dalmatia?

High school was a long time ago for me but I always remember my history teacher saying that the Germans really disliked fighting against the Canadians. He said the Germans had thought of Canadians as the hardest troops to fight against. Any truth to this?

Just finished a rereading of Ivanhoe (romanticized, I know), but it made me wonder.

With all the emphasis knights placed on chivalry/honorable conduct, was it considered dishonorable to aim your lance at your opponent's warhorse to dismount him in actual battle? I can't see even an armored horse withstanding a sharp pointy lance at a 20mph collision.

In all the portrayals of medieval jousting now, knights always aimed for the person/shield/armor of the other knight. If jousting was meant to be simulation of real combat, why, assuming it's better to unhorse the knight first, would they place so much emphasis on hitting the other person?

Thanks in advance - not too familiar with medieval history and wanted to understand how they reconciled chivalry with practicality.

The farm was located in rural Australia in Queensland. She says the farmhand lived in a small shack separate to the house and he helped with fark work. Were POW's sent out to places like this? There was no real security keeping him there and I was wondering the reasons behind this policy.

I couldn't really think of a better word than ghetto.

I imagine the East/West trade networks were the source of the terminology. Obviously before the "discovery" of the Americas north and south America were excluded from trade networks. But that doesn't explain why Africa would not be included.

Any and all information explaining what these terms represents and why is appreciated.