well i give up, i used to do archery and had to wait till 14 to do it unsupervised so good example, i know that one so just add "not enforced today" to my earlier statement gah

your telling me things i already know, im just not clarifying properly, my overall point is about european law which still stands, i know theres plenty of stupid laws, esp in america (in arkansas its illegal to leave a giraffe tied to a lamppost, thats a serious law) but people have common sense, and people who sat around making european laws wouldnt consider an english bylaw even if it did exist from 1000 years ago, just the same way as this archery thing isnt enforced, theres plenty of laws out there stretching back way into the past that noone cares about because they are just too out of line with modern society to enforce or even bother repealing so im not really interested in those, because they dont count towards european law, the ones that do would have passed through multiple commitees and votes, and im asking this one question:
would the people putting together european law seriously consider over the period of years and multiples commitees and votes that the law "trial by combat" is a valid one for the 20th century?
im saying no, thats my point, forget anything else i said, i think thats qualified enough isnt it?
and epona if you got a degree couldnt you just read between the lines of what i was saying to realise im not thick either and that im well aware of laws beforehand, in which case what i meant is different to what you were saying "its bollocks" too , next time read it through hard as that may be to do with my rambling style and then reply and DONT use insulting language id appreciate that. Reading between the lines is a crucial skill in historical studies and id imagine archaeology as well. Consider my writings a case study and do an analysis on it and on what im trying to say rather than whats being said, then you'll come up with the goods [img]smile.gif[/img]