For example, the Chinese nuclear program was initially assisted by the Soviets, who spied on the Manhattan Project, so that's a no. But did anyone else do the entire groundwork or did they all work from runoffs?

In Acts 22:28, Paul says, "I was free born," in reference to him being born a Roman citizen, but I was under the impression Roman citizenship had to be earned. One had to either buy it, or work for it through things like military service and such. Were there ways around this? Like maybe his parents bought it for him or something? Or am I just mistaken?

I’ve been asked to put together a couple of lectures about the Ottoman Empire (the historical bit I’m fine with), and they’ve asked me to spend some time talking about why the Ottoman Empire still matters—its legacies, impacts, and traces in the contemporary world.

I have a brief laundry list that includes tacos al pastor and epic soap operas (somewhat tongue in cheek, although I do plan to bring them up), but I’m curious what others who are interested in the history of the Ottoman Empire might say.

So, fellow AskHistorians, what say you: Why does Ottoman history still matter?

I was thinking about the fact that for multiple generations Roman citizens could have thought that the empire was never going to end. But did those who were living in the end times of the reign indicate in any way that they thought this was it (kind of like some people today in the US) or did they carry on thinking we'll make it through this?

Do we have any contemporary sources about what kings and queens of Europe thought, about the execution of Louis and Marie Antoinette during the French revolution? I’m especially interested at how HRE Leopold II reacted to the news his younger sister was killed.

I often hear and see how a lot of history is manipulated, how rulers of the past used to destroy the scripts, writing of the previous rulers or dynasties and even mix things up to portray their bad image etc.

So I what want to know is, after which timeline do we know that history the is accurate and even the manipulation would be found out if ever done. When did history became transparent?

And how do we even know if the history was manipulated in the first place? Or did history was not manipulated and its just a myth?

If there is a similar thread like this then link me up please. Thanks!

I’m studying the Tudors, and at the moment am noticing a divide between the names of commoners - Lambeth, Perkin - and nobility - Henry, Richard, John.

Seeing as the latter set are regarded as typical, normal names and are still pretty prevalent today: when, why and how did ordinary people move away from such names as Lambeth and start adopting those of the upper classes? Was it a smooth, natural transition?

Thanks very much!

To my limited knowledge of history, serfs were peasants who were bound to the land that they worked in which was owned by a landlord. How did these landlords stop peasants from migrating in the dark of the night for example? Did the serfs have labour strikes and such? Were all peasants serfs?

You hear all about how the allies recruited thousands of former nazi war criminals through Operation Paperclip for their scientific knowledge after the war, but did this ever happen for Japanese or Italian war criminals as well? If there are no reports of this happening, why was this the case? And why did the allies find German scientific knowledge so much more valuable than Japanese or Italian? Was it more a racialist question of Japanese ability to integrate into western society, or did the allies not consider any knowledge they possessed of sufficient value to offer the same protection?

In Western Europe they have Pike and Shot armies and all that jazz but what does eastern europe have? Do they have pike and shot armies? What do their infantry look like? Etc and what tactics do they use?

During World War II Winston Churchill decreed that his forces will set Europe ablaze, in butcher and bolt type actions by deep behind the lines Commando and Parachutist units. In the summer of 1940 he created his Special Operations Executive (SOE), referred to as "The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare", which landed small or lone groups of spies, saboteurs, assassins, and liaison officers to help back and build local Resistance forces, all over occupied Europe and Africa. The USA followed suit later on with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and mixed Jedburgh teams. These units were relatively small, unless supporting larger bands of local resistance / partisan fighters. During the fighting in North Africa the British raised such groups as the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) patrols, and Special Air Service (SAS) which would thrust deep behind Axis lines and attack airfields, communication centers, supply lines, garrisons etc... And then you had smaller to larger Commando formations which wreaked havoc from Norway, the Channel Islands, France, and all over the Mediterranean. Later on the SAS, SBS (Special Boat Service), and Commandos would infiltrate deep behind enemy lines and wreak utter havoc and devastation throughout the rest of the war. While the mainstream British Military was not overly pleased with these specialized bandit raiders, they had the full backing of Winston Churchill, and played a vital role throughout the war.

Both the British and the US had larger Airborne Divisions which they usually parachuted behind the lines at least at Regimental Combat Team level, if not a few divisions. These would open the way for more land forces to rush in. The Americans had a rough Commando equivalent in their Army Rangers, which would attack tough positions as a spearhead type unit. The US and Canada did have a joint Special Service Force fighting in Italy, but it too arguably operated similarly to the Rangers. In the Pacific and Asia the US did have Merrill's Marauders (an American version of the British / Commonwealth's Chindits) operating well behind Japanese lines in Burma, and Marine Raiders commando type units, and one or two Army Ranger and Paratrooper well behind the lines raids. HOWEVER, why did the USA not have an American equivalent of the SAS / SBS operating on "scoot and shoot" type attacks well behind German / Fascist lines in Europe? Were there Political reasons? Military brass pushback? Or simply, just no need for those type of Special Forces specializing in irregular warfare in a smaller / modest scale?

In GoT, and other European medieval set shows most cities have armed guards who act as a sort of police force and presumably army as well. How accurate is this? It was my understanding that most places didn't have a standing army and just recruited when needed rather than having professional soldiers. Or was it a case that they'd have a few professionals and recruit more as needed?

As a side question, at one point were there no slaves in England?

I see that, adjusted for 2020 dollars, the Marshall Plan cost USD 129B and is painted as a plan that almost singlehandedly rebuilt Europe. By comparison, Greece got a EUR 110b bailout and that’s just for one country.

Is the importance of the Marshall plan typically overstated?

So how did a volunteer army somehow defeat a global superpower? Like was there just a lot of espionage? I assume we couldn’t have won just by force right? I know France was involved but I assume they didn’t do all the work I mean the French are amazing fighters but not that amazing right?

Just curious

The USO for the US military was formed during WW2, and has been very active ever since. They were always there even during my own tours. This lead me to wonder, what sort of programs (if any) did the Axis countries have?

After recently writing a paper about Murat and Pétain's influence on the French military doctrine, I now have this urge to start systematically learn military history all around the world. Considering that I want to start fresh, do anyone know which book I should begin and then continue with? I'm willing to start with any level of book, as long as you believe it's valuable to do so!