My understanding was that most military's during the second world war shied away from direct assassinations for fear of the practice becoming more common and directed at themselves. I am not clear on the legality of assassinations in war during this time either.

I've always had a pretty viable history boner, recently it's become fixated on the time period around 1492 Italy (+/-10 years). Columbus is discovering America, Henry VIII is being born, Gutenberg's printing press is spreading knowledge like wildfire, and the Sforza/Medici/Borgia families are spawning drama all over the place.

I'd like to know more about what life in Italy was like during this period, for commoners and historical celebrities alike.

Bonus points if you can point me towards some historically accurate sources too.

Natural selection tends to hog the spotlight, but in the Descent of Man Darwin laid the framework for understanding how sexual selection can shape the change in species over time.

In my limited understanding of the scientific and lay communities of 19th century England, the idea of female choice as a prime mover of evolution might not be well received. What was the response, either positive or negative, to the idea that sexual selection (specifically female choice of otherwise non-adaptive or even maladaptive traits) drives change over time?

I know we don't have exact numbers, but do we have a ballpark estimate?

But yet has enough material for me to actually find so I'm not scrambling to find documents and stuff to use.

In the movies, such as 2004's Troy, we see archers firing arrow upon arrow into an oncoming army. How accurate is this in reality though? Wouldn't they run out of arrows after just a few minutes? What happened when archers ran out of arrows during a siege? And how well could arrows be stockpiled to prevent such a shortage?

I don't have any specific time period in mind, just any time when archers were still in common use. Perhaps the period of the English Longbowman.

I read on a Facebook post that Muslims reached America before Europeans. He was obviously incredibly biased, but I'm curious if there's any grain of truth behind this.

His post follows:

With all of this evidence of Muslim exploration before Columbus’s voyage in 1492, is it possible that Columbus himself knew he was not the first? It’s more than likely to be the case. Columbus sailed from Spain in the same year the last Muslim dynasty of Iberia was destroyed in the Reconquista. Many of the people of Iberia were still Muslims, and carried with them the knowledge of the Muslim Golden Ages. Numerous people on Columbus’s voyage were Moriscos, Muslims who were forced to convert to Catholicism or die. Columbus could have heard from Spain’s Muslims of the New World and was thus inspired to go exploring.

Once he got to the Americas, Columbus records numerous examples of Muslims already present. He commented on the gold that the natives had, which was made the same way, in the same alloy, as the Muslims of West Africa did. Furthermore, Columbus records that the native word in that area for gold is guanin, which is very similar to the Mandinka word for gold, ghanin, which probably comes from the Arabic word for wealth, ghina’. 

In 1498, Columbus recorded seeing a ship loaded with goods, heading towards America, filled with Africans who were probably on their way to trade with Native Americans. Columbus also records in his journal that Native Americans told him of black Africans who came regularly to trade with them.

Historically, I understand that it was the privilege of any knight to make any of his followers into a knight. (Or anyone at all, I suppose, though obviously it would be restricted in practice.) Is this still the case? In theory, can Sir Andrew Davis or Sir Terry Pratchett or some such modern knight just make anyone they like into a knight?

I apologize if this question is not worded brilliantly.

I am referring to the beginning of belief-Before organized religion. I suppose it could be during the neolithic period, when we had an idea of a higher power and we were doing the whole nature worship thing. (Again, I am so sorry if my idea of this is way off.)

The first person who had the original thought "there's a god/higher power up there"-What did he/she say to other people when they asked "Well how do you know that?" What was the justification that made the idea of god spread to out first cultures?

So, i'm fascinated by this part of history, but I can't find much more than an overview or a school level explanation of it.

I hear that a pro gladiator had a 90% chance of surviving any fight and was afforded good medical care. Apparently roman doctors working with gladiators were pioneers of the age when it came to healing fractures and flesh wounds.

My question is, if it wasn't the bloodbath that most of us think, (I discovered there were referees) then what do we know of the specific rules of gladiatorial fights?

Were there rounds, what caused the referee to step in? Was he there to ensure a fair fight, or to guide a bout toward being a spectacle? Some fighters made a career from winning bloodlessly (so Wikipedia tells me) so what were the rules, if they were written down like that old book in the national football museum, what would it say.

Also, someone told me that there were painted ads for the fights up around roman towns, I can't seem to find any examples of these. Did they survive anywhere in the world?

like some cloister that we know has tons of books but noone made a complete inventory list of them yet for whatever reasons.

or maybe some librariy that is so huge that there is a chance that in some chest is some books that noone knew they were there or existed ?

As the title asks, was there ever a leader before Hitler that was used in extreme comparisons? Would one call an aggressive monarch "literally Napoleon"?

Hello, First time posting here, Im working as a teacher at a High-School level School in Sweden and some of my students are working on a paper about WW2 and Nazi Germany, I wonder what the nazis used/borrowed/stole from other cultures and history more than the svastika. Anything related to science, culture and Ideology would be greatly appreciated. I Might add that I do NOT teach in History or English, I Teach Swedish and Math. Edit: Grammar

Seems it would be easier to move through the highly developed cultures in those areas rather than the sparsely populated deserts and mountains.

Considering the Soviet prowess for intelligence, it makes sense that they could infer the participation of the US (especially when all those new fangled Stingers started showing up). I have to imagine that the CIA would do their best to keep US involvement as invisible as possible, but even while working through ISI as an intermediary, what pieces of the puzzle did they leave behind that could implicate US support?

Unless I am mistaken, there are no records of bodies being found inside the pyramids. Yet, if you ask Joe Schmo on the street he'll say they are tombs. Is the archeological community split on this issue? If they are not tombs then what are they?