I watched Master and Commander for the first time the other day and fell in love with it. I know the story is fiction; but rooted in historical accuracy. I suppose I should put a spoiler warning here for those who have not seen it.

The main question that I came away with after watching the movie is whether the deception at climax of the film would have been “legal” at the time in regards to the rules of engagement.

I am very interested in naval history but don’t know much about laws or treaties that govern/governed naval warfare. I’m not sure if “rules of engagement” is even the right term for what I’m asking, so I hope this question makes since. Also, I figure that war is was and tactics are not always limited to what is acceptable at the time. Anyways, I can probably boil this down into three parts:

Was the disguising of a warship allowed under the rules of engagement at the time and if so, what were the specific rules?(ie. did you have to fly a flag, declare yourself at a certain time, etc.)

Is there a real/famous example of this tactic being used in the time this story would have taken place?

How have deception and concealment in naval warfare evolved and been governed over time?

The British usually "acquired" a lot of artifacts from the places they went to. Did they happen to "acquire" anything from Washington DC when they captured and burned the city during the War of 1812 and can I go see it in the British Museum today?

Hi Historians,

I was wondering if there are more resources in the contemporary divide in black thought most embodied by the debates between the Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois. I wanted to know more about what happened to Booker T. Washington's philosophy as it appears they fizzled out in the early 2000's with the likes of Aaron McGruder, and C. Delores Tucker with their critiques on the "bad" parts of black culture. The only people I know that still adhere to this philosophy are pretty much boomer generation black Americans, whereas the younger generation, who are in Du Bois's camp, appears to embrace all black culture. A few questions I'd like to know:

1. Is the debate still ongoing?
2. Has the debate evolved into something else?
3. Which stance has the NAACP taken on this debate?

For comparison, in that period in Spain only about one third of the actors were literate. The rest had to memorise their lines from hearing and repeating them.

Combatting lies and misinformation is a major issue in Tech today. Were blatant lies a problem with pamphleteers and yellow journalists in the 18th Century? Were the Founders aware, yet passed the first amendment any way? What was their reasoning?

The U.S. Military has fought such campaigns as “Just Cause” (invasion of Panama), “Desert Storm” (Gulf War), “Infinite Reach” (attacks on Al-Qaeda installations), and “Enduring Freedom” (War in Afghanistan). What led them to adopt such colourful codenames?

I'm trying to find some historians who support the argument that Bismarck was responsible for unification, along with some who disagree (and perhaps argue that nationalism/economic policy may have been more important.
Who are key historians in the field who have argued for/against this most clearly? Thanks

The Khazars were a Turkic settled people who had an empire around the Caspian sea. They somehow disappeared from history pages after the 10th century AD. In some sources they're called "Hazar" and their region 'Hazaria, or Hazarstan'.

The Hazaras on other hand are a persianized Turkic ethnic group native to Hazarstan region in central Afghanistan. They're pretty distinct from the neighboring ethnicities in terms of culture, language and appearance. There are no sources with any mention of the word 'Hazara' in Afghanistan prior to the 15th century.

Is this a pure historical coincidence that these groups of people's have so similar names, or could there be some connection?

Was the ex post facto part controversial at the time?

In Bible Now, HB scholar, Shawna Dolansky writes

In Israel (and among many other peoples) in biblical times, men could have many wives. They could also have other women—concubines—in their homes along with their wives. Men with two wives, or even harems, had opportunities for group sex and for voyeurism of female homosexuality. This is a common male fantasy.
...
It may be hard for us to grasp how very different it was to live in a world of polygamy. Today it is a fantasy for men, which they can view in these venues, but for men in the ancient world it was an option, at least for the men of wealth who could afford it. They could arrange it, see it, even participate along with it on any given night. For those who believe that the biblical law codes were written by men, men were not about to forbid female-to-female contact.
p. 13-14

Do we have any evidence or extant descriptions of group-sex or voyeurism from the Ancient Near East that was contained within the extended household/clan?

I know there's descriptions of orgies, but that doesn't necissarily involve household members.

On the surface it seems like a good idea. Hell, if it were introduced to me in Elementary school I think I’d be better off. I had just learned about this topic recently and I am still intrigued about all the reasoning behind its introduction.

Asking for a book I'm writing that takes place in the 1950s

I just want to know how easy it was but I can't find much about it online. Like what were the things that would get people caught in the 1950s?

Edit: I got my answer from doing more research on the history of specific things (like DNA testing, Autopsies, poison testing, ect...). Thank you to everyone who commented!

An event that killed almost as many as WW1 but yet the english lang resources are pretty thin on the ground, there are a handful and I'd like to know which one I should start with

If I ask a person today what year they believe it is, 99% of people across the globe will correctly tell me 2022.

If I went back to the year 1700, I imagine most people, though probably not quite 99%, would know it was 1700. If I went back to 1400, would the average person know? 1200? 800 AD?

That is, the permanent swelling in the ear that occurs after blunt force trauma, often seen in modern boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, rugby players, etc.

I imagine the answer to this question is 'yes' but I'm wondering if there are any artistic or written sources that would confirm it!

Wouldnt the likes of Acropolis, Eiffel tower, tower of pisa, sagrada familia, the colosseums, prague castle, brandenburg gate be prime targets for bombing or attacks to demoralize or inflict some kind of damage to the enemy? How has so much cultural historical sites survived the numerous european wars, and especially the world wars? (Thought about the question when I read reports regarding russian troops destroying ukrainian cultural sites) thanks!

I recently rewatched the film The Captain (German: Der Hauptmann) and was reading about the real life Willi Herold which got me thinking about the backdrop of the film and what Germany was like on the eve of capitulation. Specifically in the areas that were yet to be occupied by allied forces.

The film seemed to depict a complete breakdown in both civil and military order with scenes that seemed to resemble things you might see in Mad Max.

At best we see lots of uniformed personnel idling around seeming to offer very little strategic military value. At several points we see soldiers aimlessly wandering around the German countryside, lost with no specific orders to enact.

At worst, we see other soldiers descend into something more akin to banditry, committing atrocities and pillaging wherever they went.

Obviously this is a film and there is a certain amount of artistic license to be expected, but I’m wondering whether this is an accurate portrayal and whether anyone could expand on whether things were indeed this chaotic and disorganised during the final months of the war?

Thank you in advance :)