The traditional view is that the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, drove some of the Britons to Wales, and subjugated the rest, forcing them perhaps over time to switch to Anglo-Saxon which became Old English.

​

But nowadays historians say this theory is wrong, that it was actually a much less organised and more peaceful migration. I've no particular axe to grind saying that's wrong, I assume it's not, but I do wonder why, if a mostly Brythonic-speaking populace was joined by much smaller groups of immigrants from Saxony, Jutland, Ireland, Norway, etc... then why did they stop speaking Brythonic?

Apologies for any mistakes in terminology.

I've read somewhere I can't quite remember that the usual romanized - Hyeondae or something similar - would have been a mouthful for western customers unfamiliar with Korean names and more used to seeing Japanese brand names like Honda and Suzuki, and so the company decided to go with a more Japanese style spelling. Is it really true?

On sub-reddits such as /r/VintageSmut, it’s not uncommon to see old photos from the 1920s or 1930s of women wearing strap-on dildos. For some reason, I was under the impression that these devices were much newer. Does anyone know their actual history?

30-40 years ago I was told a story by a WW2 vet who fought in Europe. He was some sort of engineer when I had known him, and in WW2 he had done a lot of secret work.

This one story he told was about a raid he was involved in on a Nazi sub den during the war. The gist of it was that they wanted to destroy this nazi sub den so this plan was devised to send a bunch of aircraft there to attack it. They took some number - 6, 8, whatever - of some type of bomber and converted them into flying bombs. They were controlled by radio by people in other bombers that flew with these flying bombs. When they got near these sub dens, the radio control operators blew the wings off these flying bomb SSI they’d fall onto the sub den and explode.

He went on to say how their next recon showed the sub den had little damage, later they learned that this sub den was so well constructed, with such thick concrete, that their attacks couldn’t have damaged it much.

Are any of you familiar with this raid? I’d like to learn more about it. Unfortunately the man who told me this story and everyone I knew who was attached to him passed away 20+ years ago.

I’m writing a story set in 1950s Yakutia, for which I’ve been doing as much research as I can without overloading my brain with info. The main antagonist is a member of the local soviet who administers a large diamond mine and effectively controls the local economy/government because of this. Is a situation like this accurate? How was an enterprise like a diamond mine run in the 1950s USSR? I know that private ownership of companies had almost completely been banned in the Soviet Union since the 1920s, apart from “collectivized” farms. How would the antagonist be able to administer the mine (or the local government, for that matter) without being a CEO or president, which, needless to say, wasn’t possible in 1950s Russia?

Thanks in advance!

Celts call them "Saxons", presumably after raiders that pillaged Britain earlier. Procopius calls them Angles and Frisians only, leaving out "Saxons" entirely. Pope Gregory seems to agree. The Anglo-Saxons themselves seemed to like the idea of an "English" language for "England", spoken by "Angle-kin", even among different kingdoms/tribes like the West Saxons.

Is there any serious evidence to suggest that three distinct peoples actually participated in migration, or is it more likely that it was instead a collection of early Anglo-Frisian speakers who only fractured in identity after the fact? Did the West Saxons actually have roots among the Continental Saxons, despite linguistic evidence to the contrary, or is the recurrence of the name 'Saxon' just parallel to that of the Veneti or the Parisii, denoting different tribes depending on place and time, named together because of some common element? After all, the Seax was quite a popular tool, I don't think it'd be inconceivable that multiple tribes would name themselves for it.

Put short: Is the traditional, and often popularly unquestioned, narrative of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes as entirely distinct peoples true? Does it hold up archaeologically, culturally? Does Wessex bear more in common with Old Saxony than with Northumbria? Or is there something more to what seems to me to be an almost political use of language favoring one moniker or the other depending on the source, and the views of the source regarding the migrants? If they are all Angles after all, did the (eventual) Saxons of Britain begin to identify with the Continental Saxons later on?

This question stands aside from the nature of the actual population makeup of Britain, which I understand is largely continuous since Celtic times. I am speaking in terms of culture, language, and identity, rather than raw genetics.

I was explaining to a friend what the difference between different pirates in the 1500s-1800s were and a though suddenly came to my head. Where did they even get their ships? Shipbuilding had to have been pretty difficult and expensive. How did groups of bandits get ahold of warships of such a caliber? Pirates today have little more than pontoon boats or glorified yachts while pirates are often shown having full sized war frigates. Were they given them by competing nations? Stolen from armories? Built in secret shipyards?

I was watching a video (regarding Adolf Eichmann) in the "Moral Foundations of Politics" course on coursera in which the professor, Ian Shapiro, said that one of the reasons why Israel kidnapped Eichmann was because Argentina probably wouldn't have extradited Eichmann. Can someone please explain the reasoning behind the statement?

In WWI or WWII, was there ever a successful event where a crew of one ship boarded another ship, taking both for their side? Like big warships not convoys. If not, was this ever tried?

Right now I aware aware of fighters, close air support (CAS), tactical bombers (TAC), and strategic bombers (STR). For example, I imagine TACs and STRs with interchanged roles would be much more effective than either under the same circumstances with fighters.

Obviously the soldiers would go on the beach, but what about those people controlling the craft? Did they stay inside? Did they go back to the ships or stay put?