I would like to know the practical use of swords of European, and for this we are considering Poland European too for their famous saber usage, on the battlefield outside of cavalry from the 1500s to 1800s. This probably could be worded better but it's late and I'm on mobile.

We all know of various treaties (such as the Geneva conventions) which prohibit the use of certain types of weapons in war, such as chemical or biological ones.

Are there any examples of weapons or martial techniques from earlier periods in history that were seen as dishonorable or forbidden (whether these rules were codified or not)?

Thanks!

My grandmother informs me that my great-grandfather used to be a sheriff's deputy in California in the 1930s. While out one day (not sure if investigating or just on patrol), his partner was murdered by a man using an axe, with my great-grandfather being present for the event. I do not know any other details of the incident, I only have my great-grandfather's name and the county he worked in.

How do I collect more information on this incident, the events leading to it, and the fallout?

If a European Gentleman from the 19th century.

One of these characters is an Irish soldier in the British army. Would a beard be tolerated?

A reason I sometimes hear for the U.S.'s proactive occupation approach (and also for the failure to prosecute the Emperor for war crimes), is that there was a looming specter of communism in and around Japan at the time immediately following the war and into the 1950's. How true is this?

Several European nations, most notably the Portuguese and later the British, were able to take over trade in the Indian Ocean? I'm aware that the takeover involved violent seizing of crucial trade cities, e.g. Goa. Why were the native Indians, Arabs, and South East Asians who had traditionally controlled the trade unable to effectively fight back? Is the answer simply: The Europeans had bigger boats and fewer scruples?

Am Australian and for a significant part of our history we've had British pounds, Got Save The Queen as our national anthem, the Union Jack as our flag (still exists in one corner), the Privy Council of the UK as our highest court of appeal, and so on.

Each time one of these was dropped, it was largely (with, of course, some opposition) seen as a positive historical transition into a unique Australian identity.

What, however, were the comments from members of the British monarchy about these?

I'm led to believe they were always jolly good sports, and while there has been no official hostilities, were the royals ever quoted to have been pissed off?

I would say any answer pertaining to the 11th-15th centuries in Europe would be fine.

200 years old? 500? Does an actual grave marking the spot make it any more or less acceptable to examine remains? Where's the line, whether contextually or age-wise?

If there's a better subreddit to ask this question, I apologize in advance.

I always hear the stories of how the Europeans brought sicknesses that wiped out entire regions of Natives, but rarely hear of any other Human->Human sicknesses that the Natives spread (if there were any). I do realize that swamps and malaria and whatnot were a big deal, but never you never hear too much about human spread sicknesses in the early America's

Does anyone know in which of Erasmus' works he says “I put up with this church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that I will become better.”?