Are they different ages? Different weight? How wealthy would they be?

So I was watching Troy and while not the greatest historical piece I saw an event I have seen other times the two sides both offered up a champion to combat another 1v1. Was this a common practice for leaders and why did they do it ? Edit: Duels misspelling in title

Firstly, I am not using the word 'tribalism' in a pejorative sense. I mean it literally, where society is organized by a network of tribes, clans, families, etc.

I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong), that prior to the nationalism and nations of Europe, European peoples were organized into similar social structures; one of essentially tribes, and clans within tribes, etc, but these tribes and clans eventually broke down to the point where only "nuclear families" and the individuals within them came to matter within an overall 'nation'. (and today we basically have individual 'citizens' comprising of the nation)

What I am wondering, is why this failed to occur in the Middle East and its peoples. I know they do have countries and nationalities, but these countries are more of a surface political arrangement (compared to European nations), and just underneath it one still has tribal alliance, clans, families etc.

It is difficult to imagine one willing to die for his "nation" of the Syrians, or the Saudis, or the Jordanians and so on (while this willingness to die for the nation -even if most are complete strangers is self-evident among European nations -or at least has been historically). One will always stick with tribe, clan, family and ofc religious sect. In this sense countries/nations come and go, but tribe, clan and family remain. (while if a European nation was torn apart, unless it split into distinct new nations it would be hard to see what would be left of it)

Iran however is basically a Middle Eastern equivalent of a European 'nation' in the sense of social structure. -so there is one example of successful nationalism or "nationalization" in the Middle East.

So to sum up, what prevented the tribal social structures of the Middle East from breaking down and morphing into a more national structure? And what allowed this to happen in Europe?

Cheers.

Basically if someone was born in South Carolina in 1863, would they still be an American citizen after the war or would they have been considered to be born in a different nation.

Hi! I just read over in /r/europe that the first Swedish town was founded in 980 AD. But that seems ridiculous, as surely people lived in Sweden before that time. Could anyone enlighten me as to what life was like in Scandanavia north of Denmark before the 'Viking Age?'

During WWII the US had the Thompson and grease gun, the Brits had the Sten gun, the Germans had the MP40, the Russians the PPSh-41 and PPS-43, the Italians the Model 38, etc etc etc. These firearms were produced on a massive scale and given out to large numbers of troops and incorporated into the doctrine of war, especially by the Germans and Russians.

So why, after WWII, do submachineguns begin to disappear from military arsenals? I'm aware that they continue to exist, even today, in small units and specialty roles, but their widescale prevalence is completely gone from modern militaries. What caused their decline in use?

I read somewhere once (and I'm paraphrasing) that the French forgave the Germans for invading their country, but never forgave the Americans or British for liberating it. What does that mean?

Are there superstitions surrounding the phenomenon? Is it different if the shock comes from a person rather than an object? It just seems like this would've been something wild to experience without the prevalence, or at least the knowledge, of electricity.

Just a few questions on the Sicilian Normans, and their military structure...

1. What influences did the Muslims and Byzantines have on the armament of the Normans of the South? I had seen a picture of a Siculo-Norman Knight, and he looked somewhat Eastern in appearance to me (compared to Knights of Western Europe). If they did adopt weapons and armor from those two peoples, what did they adopt and why?

2. I had read that Roger II had adopted a thoroughly Byzantine view on warfare and his military, how did this effect the Norman Knights and Norman barons of Southern Italy and Sicily?

3. Were Norman Knights growing up during this period expected to speak several languages? I had read that some of the Hauteville's and their vassals had spoken Scandinavian as well as Norman French, did that practice survive? Or did they become Greek/Arabic/Latin speakers?

4. At the height of Norman controlled Sicily, would Norman Knights of the South resemble Knights? Or were they more similar to Muslim Faris'?

5. Did the aristocratic class, or barons rather retain somewhat of a cultural identity by dressing in French garb? Or did they begin to dress like other Muslims, and Byzantines? Didn't Roger dress in Byzantine clothing?

6. How much of an impact did the Byzantines, Muslims, and Lombards have on the architecture and Government of Norman controlled Sicily?

7. Did the Normans eventually intermarry with the locals? Or were the Normans thoroughly Norman so to speak?

And what is considered to be the definitive work/source on Norman controlled Sicily?

Thanks.

From many of my studies on the Roman/Byzantine Empire, I have observed that in the span of 350 years from the 'Fall of the West' to the start of the Byzantine recovery in the early 800s, almost no family names are recorded in chronicles, letters, etc. You have a whole plethora of Late Roman names like Galla Placidia and Flavius Aetius in the 5th Century, then a long period of time where people are almost universally referred to by their first name + ethnicity, place of birth, epithet, or profession (Theophanes Confessor, Paul the Deacon, Charles 'Martel', Leo III the Isaurian), and then, in the early 9th Century, a return to continuous family names again (Michael I Rangabe, son of Theophylact Rangabe, Nikephoros Phokas the Elder, and Michael Melissenos, to name a few).

What I'd like to know is: what actually caused this to happen? Was the elimination of the familial name an artificial construct brought about by the style of chronicling (meaning that the names still existed, but were simply not recorded), or was it part of the wider cultural, economic, or political changes that occurred during the era, meaning that people simply had no use for, or perhaps forgot, their old family names?

And one final question: is there much evidence to support the idea that some of these 'new' Medieval surnames were originally taken to honor or support famous religious leaders of the time, such as Popes or saints?

In my imagination, the Inquisition, whereever it roamed, is just terribly brutal. Arbitrary arrests, unimaginably cruel torture methods... just spreading terror whereever it roamed.

But I read or heard somewhere that, apparently, it wasn't as bad as popular culture and media depictions would make it believe. What do the sources say? Was it all in all an abomination? Was it to try to contain the spread of protestantism?

Arabia isn't exactly the most densely populated area of the world. Most of it is uninhabitable desert, so where did the Muslim armies get the manpower to take over far more densely populated areas with established centralized powers. Particularly on my mind is Egypt. Egypt is still the most populated Arab country and the Nile has always had a concentration of wealth.

Before the use of guns and gunpowder, when two armies (for example, the Byzantines, Romans, Mongols and Arabs) stood opposite to each other, what followed next? Did they wait for the call and then suddenly charged at each other? Did the battle at some point consist of multiple duels? I know the Greeks had the Phalanx and the Romans also had their formations, but I'm not sure how all of those formations were actually applied during the battle itself.