Hi there,

I'd like to consider myself a soccer fan, but as a relatively late-comer to the game and as an American who grew up on football and ice hockey, I've always wondered how soccer's limited substitution rules came to be.

Were substitutions a contentious issue within the FAs early in the game's history, or was there a strong consensus against subs? If so, what were their reasons? Did public opinion play a role?

I was wondering why the germanic tribes did not band together to defeat the Roman empire sooner.

Was there a history of Serbian dominance of Croats before WWII which might explain the hostility, or was it more of a conspiracy-theory motivated scapegoat sort of situation similar to the hostility prevalent in Europe towards Jews?

Was it simply a matter of Croats jumping on the percieved racial superiority bandwagon along with the Germans perhaps?

Recently I have been reading about the late bronze age in the near east and I came across many references to cities like Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad (or at least the equivalent at the time). However, I remember a book by Richard Bulliet (if I remember correctly) in which he explains that Muslim entrants into the Levant and Mesopotamia settled into newly founded cities in order to escape the factionalism of existing politics and to distance themselves from non-Muslims who might chafe at them, and to have a more secure location.

So who is correct? Were Baghdad and Damascus founded by the Muslims or were they older?

To clarify, I mean before Operation Barbarossa.

I've read Alison Weir's account, and Trevor Royle's Lancaster against York as well, both some time ago. I don't know why but I'm kind of in the mood to read more, but I've been coming up short on my search. I want anything from the death of Bedford to Tewkesbury, perhaps all the way to Bosworth field as long as it's not solely focused on the princes in the tower. Anything you can recommend from translated (to modern English) primary sources to modern historical accounts, be they on a single battle or the entire series of events, I'm up for it.

Yesterday, me and my friend where playing Red orchestra 2 and he brought up an interesting question. Were there any woman in combat roles during WWII? Not nurses in tents, not weapon nor weapon ammunition manufacturing, but real combat roles (what can be classified as combat roles can be someone who works in a tank in the battlefield, pilot, someone who works on a ship, or even just a plane ol' solder.) If there were non, were there informal cases (i.e. woman picks up gun and shoots ally/axis forces.)?

In advance, thank you.

I'm African American and my girlfriend in Brazilian. On a few different occasions she's mentioned how the slaves that were brought to America became so "American" while in Brazil they retained a strong sense of being African.

She described the state of Bahia as having a culture that has way more African influence than the state where she's from in Rio.

I recently went on a trip to Puerto Rico with my mother and we went to a museum. They also talked about how the African slaves were able to preserve their culture and how it influenced the rest of Puerto Rican culture.

Why did this happen in Brazil and other parts of Latin America but it didn't happen in the US?

Were pirates ever hunted down for bounties?

I've never heard a "clear" answer to the motives behind the Mongol Invasion. I've only heard of the results, and even then the answers have been pretty vague.

Some presidents, Like Grant and Harding, have had corrupt administration members. But, have any presidents actually been personally corrupt?

Basically, Mayan sacrifice is depicted as incredibly bloody, lines of people waiting to be sacrificed, hearts being torn out, prisoners used for sacrifice, etc. Basically, stuff along the lines of Apocalypto. How accurate is this depiction? How common was sacrifice in Mayan society?

In particular for capital punishment in Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate. I'm curious about the account of events viewed as a legal proceeding.

Did the Jewish leadership really need Roman authority to execute someone? Could the Jews even arrest anyone of their own authority in Roman occupied Jerusalem or did they have to course those things through the Roman authorities?

Would a pardon such as Barabas received be granted that capriciously?

Would Jesus have been entitled to legal counsel? Was there a particular prescribed form to the trial?

Was the manner in which the conviction and the death sentence was arrived at in keeping with Roman law?

Was the crime for which Jesus was convicted that of insurrection against the Roman empire? Was there a particular law or statute that would have been invoked?

Was death by crucifixion the correct legal penalty under the law?

Would Roman soldiers really speed crucifixions along by thinking to stab the convict dead?

Is there anything implausible to detailing guards to the deceased's tomb?