Were there restrictions to civilians on traveling on these trains? Could one commute or travel for personal reasons using the trains?

Was listening to Dan Carlin’s hardcore history discussing the eastern front. During this he mentioned numerous times when a General at HQ disagreed with Hitler he would fire him. Did that mean demote, reassign or as used currently remove him from the military?

I ask because I had a story idea involving a Japanese singer who's also an anti-imperial spy.

I recently had the opportunity to get a bit more of an overview of the history of my home town (Edinburgh, if anyone has any specifically applicatible answers), and it's really got me curious about what the daily lives of it's inhabitants would have been throughout history. So, if I didn't have enough money for private musicians and such, what would have been my medieval entertainment options, were there affordable theatres, public storytelling, general partying, or would I have had to make my own fun at home?

I've heard that what became the nobility was initially just armed groups extorting farmers and towns, and eventually that extortion morphed into taxation and the feudal system. Is there any truth to this?

Did the wall temporary halt Japanese advance or did they easily go through it using dynamite and/other explosives?

Would there be anyone re supplying troops mid battle?

I’ve often heard about civilians gathering to watch Civil War battles (like Bull Run) in a picnic setting. Were these people ever in any real danger of being under fire, or in serious harms way?

I'm working on some of the questions Oxford theologians were asking their Master's and Doctoral students for their Inception and I'm having trouble with the vocabulary. The words are recognizable, but most of my training was in Classical Latin and I know I'm missing the significance of some of the words.

For example - "An legis impletio sit possibilis?" I know this has something to do with "fulfillment" in the theological sense, but "legis" is throwing me for a loop. Whitaker's Words has been helpful, but I can't quite piece it together.

Are there any guides or side-by-side translations that could help guide me?

So there have been talks about the Ottomans and the whole Rome claim thing. While it seems the Ottomans did not see themselves as Romans, and instead just ruling over Romans, I was wondering what they saw themselves as actually.

From the wikipedia page of Ottoman titles and appellations, Sultan precedes all other titles, but I’m not sure if this means anything.

Han is Turkic, as the Ottomans were a Turkic people. However they saw Turks as like peasant or tribal folk and sometimes disdained them.

Padishah is Persian, and since the Ottomans were influenced by Persian culture and language, I’m inclined to think the Ottomans saw themselves as Persianate.

But what was the Ottoman identity to the Ottomans? Did they truly see themselves as a successor to any of the ancient empires or their turkic ancestors? Or did they have a different concept of their identity altogether?

Hello. I remember reading 10+ years ago accounts of children from southern states being taken north (Indiana being one of the states) after the civil war being placed in homes and used as workers until they were adults. I am trying to track down the accounts I had read but cannot seem to find any information on it now.

I was taught in high school that ukraine was the breadbasket of the ussr and during the famine all of ussr starved except for the far east and moscow/leningrad. I was also taught that the holodomor was caused by the communist attempt at nationalising the farming industry and taking away land and tool from the peasants had and declaring the peasantry as enemy of the state no matter the nationality. Also was there any reason for stalin to purge ukraine from the ukranians to leave it for the russians since he himself was part of a minority in the ussr?

Hearken to me readers and contributors of AskHistorians for I bring you tidings! Today we, the AskHistorians moderators, your benevolent dictators friends, accept new members into our exalted ranks of comment removers and behind the scenes drudgers! In the high hallowed halls of our secret cabal, filled with smoke, mirrors, and ban-hammers we the AskHistorians mods have passed a new doom upon the land, and decreed that more lackeys valued contributors should rise to a new station and be given the keys to the kingdom.

Our decree thus follows:

In the interest of further preserving the strict no fun allowed policy high standards of our subreddit, we have deemed several new mods to be established herein who shall reign over the lands of our demesne, given in our grace, to our valued vassals.

May we all join together in fealty and gratitude to welcome:

/u/historiagrephour our Scottish historian extraordinaire, who shall sound off in the threads with raucous pipes and critical examination of early modern gender roles!

/u/DGBD who brings their musical talent to add to our own concerto and be heard across the subreddit!

/u/hellcatfighter adds their own knowledge of China and Japan to weave into our expertise!

and /u/Steelcan909! (What do you mean I'm announcing myself and speaking in the third person? I don't think our new mod would appreciate that kind of talk!)

Should any infringe upon this, our generous gift, may they be bound by the inextricable bonds of being hit with the banhammer and cast out, or the more greater, make amends through excessive begging and supplication!

Nowadays everywhere around the world men mostly have short hair and women mostly have long hair. But was this always the case? I know that European royalty wore elaborate wigs but what about normal people with natural hair? Native American men had long hair too. So, I guess these are exceptions.

We've all seen this scenario in a movie or TV show: someone (a medieval rogue, a drunken cowboy, etc.) finishes off a bottle of alcohol and then nonchalantly throws it over their shoulder or otherwise smashes it on the ground. I've always viewed this as a waste of a valuable resource, especially in times of old. So my question is this: when did glass bottles become so cheap and easy to produce that they became a disposable commodity instead of a reusable one?

Assuming that the world came to this conclusion at different times. When did the U.S. conclude this? What about Germany?

My limited understanding is that for hundreds of years Greece had innovators in math from the likes of Pythagoras to Euclid to Archimedes, but then Rome kind of 'took over' during the Byzantine Empire and it seems the drive for mathematical innovation heavily slowed for significant period of time. Was it actually stifled by Roman policies or did Roman academics just lose interest/not have any in this particular field?