I don't quite recall whence, but in some media there is a scene where a few spectators observing a joust are shocked to see one combatant challenging his opponent "a la guerre".

How would this have been done? Was there an official gesture a knight could employ (e.g. throwing down the gauntlet, switching out his lance for a sharpened one) that would signal "I'm done playing around"?

How would knights outside of tournaments show their intent (friendly/spiteful) when challenging another to a joust, duel, or any sort of martial event? I'm aware in Shakespeare's day pulling the beard was a good, fun way to go about showing that you'd love nothing less than to kill this person; how about in the 13th century, specifically in Western Europe?

I have done some research on the topic and found that the first Civilization seems to be regarded as Sumer from Mesopotamia, even though there are several other theories. So we this where the first government took place? If so could you please tell me a bit about the type of government that was there (or wherever government originated) or direct me to somewhere that could provide me with this information?

Thanks!

Just saw a documentary on the IRA and they talked about how there was a transformation into a marxist organization in the 60's, I had never heard this.

Also one of the ministers interviewed stated the RoI was a tyranny when it was released in the 20's, was that a fair statement?

Were there any high profile defections during the American Civil War? Like on th level of Benedict Arnold?

Did rank and file soldiers defect?

What was desertion like?

hello, im am currently doing the research project, and I want to learn more about the impacts that the russian empire has made on our modern world. My questions are:

1. What were the main political events of the Russian empire
2. Who were the primary Influential people of the Russian empire
3. What was their culture during that time (i.e. sports, Arts, etc)
4. What was their impact on the modern era
5. How extensive is that impact? thanks for your time

Hello Historians! I've tried to search this question and looked at the FAQ but it doesn't seem to in there so here is my submission:

Why did modern day Russia not break up after the fall of the Sovjet Union?

Why was todays Russia (taking into account the 20 years rule ) kept together?

Was there any revolution going on in eastern Russia trying to break-off?

At that time, was Russia divided (economically, socially ) or a coherent cultural group?

edit: Should I reformulate my question? I'm not sure if my question is against this rule: "Questions should be about what did happen, not what could have happened."

Gold is practically symbolic of value, and has been for a very long time, but I was wondering what could fulfill a similar role in a time before metallurgy existed.

Just visited the North Shore of Boston. Many of the houses in Salem and Beverly have pineapple icons over their doors or integrated into the architecture in some fashion.

What is the significance of the pineapple? Were they simply luxury items so they served as a status symbol?

Churches in the South justified slavery and racism at some point, correct? Did this occur in the North as well? And if so, when?

Traditional Christian culture says that all sex outside marriage is immoral, and my understanding is that this has been true throughout history. However, I'm curious if my assumption is correct. Has there ever been a period of time in a culture that identified as Christian where most couples did not get married?

I was told this was true but I always thought it would happen regardless of the American Revolution.

I keep hearing people talk about this -- "Machiavelli took ethics out of government" but did he actually?

The leaders knew what they were doing, no? Where else would he have gotten his examples? What he was writing seems to only shock the layman.

So would it not be more accurate to say that Machiavelli removed the perception of ethics from government?

Thanks!

In those three periods of Irish culture, how did war and peace differ? How did the many Irish kings organize their kingdoms? Was religion different in Ireland than on Britain? Is the historical English stereotype of nomadic, lawless "wild Irishmen" unfounded? Lastly, the Statutes of Kilkenny prohibit the performance of Irish music. Does that refer to only music in the Gaelic language, or a genre that was musically distinct from English music?

I know it has been and still is a cause of considerable discrimination. However, I can't help but think that there must have been a reason for this thing to have gotten created in the first place.

Some of my thougths -

1. When mastery over craftsmanship has to be passed from generation to generation, it probably made sense to restrict people who have been performing something for generations to insist that they continue doing so, so that the wisdom and experience gets passed to the descendants. This would be especially useful if there was a lack of permanent records.

2. People in any group find some reason to further subdivide into sub-groups. Probably the most rational way to do this might have been their occupations.

3. Identification with a group gives a strong feeling of individuality. Additionally, when the same occupational groups are across disparate regions, it's easier for a person to move from one region to another and fit in/be welcomed by a similar group, where similar sets of rules are followed. This is also a natural human tendency, I feel. Whenever we go to a foreign city, it always helps to find someone from a similar background but who is also conversant of the rules of the new place.

4. Contrary to some other types of social systems, where wealth and power usually accumulate the higher one goes up the social hierarchy, in the Indian system, the highest caste, the brahmins, are not supposed to horde wealth. Instead, they are supposed to believe in austerity, simple living and renunciation. So, although, they wield power, they cannot accumulate wealth. The royalty, on the other hand, accumulate wealth, and they do have the power over the people; however, they are supposed to be subservient to the brahmins, which is contrary to other systems.

5. Also, from what I understand, it was possible to move up the ladder, so to speak, but to do so, you really had to prove your mettle. There are numerous mythologies surrounding this idea.

I'm sure I'm mistaken in some / all of these points. But can someone enlighten me, as to what the real benefits might have been. Because from a conceptual point of view, the caste system does sound quite rational, albeit for a different time.

The reality is quite different, I know. However, I'm trying to gauge the soundness of the theory!

I assume there was but have not found much discussion of it. I'm trying to put together a little documentary but have not found any video sources on the matter.

Apologies if I have grossly misunderstood the common image of the violent, merciless barbarian that is attributed to the late antiquity Germanic tribes like goths and vandals (as well as the later norse), but it seems like the image of a "weak" peaceful figure in Jesus would be less attractive to such a society than Thor or the Germanic pantheon. Why did a warrior culture eschew warrior gods for that of a foreign carpenter that told them that the merciful were blessed and the peacemakers were the children of god?

Did missionaries present the gospels in some unconventional way, perhaps emphasizing the OT Father or portraying christ in a different way than how he was preached in the Mediterranean? I'm just interested in why such a culture would do such a 180 on the subject of its worship. A god with a hammer seems to fit my image of the barbarians at the gate, but they dropped those gods despite little outward change in the rest of their society (to my understanding).

Basically, the title: how were EARLY motorists taught to use stoplights?

And can it be traced back to one culture?