It seems the use of the term "Partisans" for a rebel/resistance/guerrilla/patriot/independence movement is most common in reference to the Eastern Front in WW2, Yugoslavia, and also the Ukrainian rebels in the Soviet Union after WWII from 1945-1955.

Also, it seems that "resistance movement" is used more often for the Western Europeans under German rule during WWII. For Eastern Europeans under German rule during WWII, "partisans" is more likely to be said. Is this a correct assessment?

Why is the term "Partisan" favored for these times and regions, but in other times and regions, historians usually say "rebels", "guerrilla", "independence", "patriots", "resistance", "separatists", etc.?

It is my understanding there were certainly a lot of them. Why did they never settle in big cities? Or did they, and i just don't know.

A typical legend describing a prominent archer, like Robin Hood or other, says that those men could shoot arrows with incredible accuracy, hitting arrow with another arrow or shooting through a ring. However, a typical description of a battle involving archers suggests mass shooting without aim ("arrows covered the sky" or "the Sun could not be seen because of flying arrows"). Isn't there a contradiction? Which was the real archery tactic - to take aim precisely or to shoot as many arrows as possible?

I finished Lawrence of Arabia tonight and had trouble keeping up with the politics. There was a decent grasp through the duration of the film but my knowledge still feels shallow.

I don’t know much history, let alone much about World Wars.

Thanks for reading and or writing.

Hello Looking for a good place to begin as stated above. The less biased the better please. I realize I know a little bit but not enough to hold a serious conversation. Any good book recommendations appreciated. Thanks in advance.

One for the ecclesiastical historians out there — I’m currently reading Gideon’s Spies, Gordon Thomas’ history of the Mossad. There are no shortage of deeply dubious claims and implications (not to mention outright factual errors) in the book, but this one is by far the strangest and least plausible-sounding I’ve encountered yet, from a chapter on Vatican-Israeli relations:

The chilly relationship on both sides stemmed partly from a bizarre incident following the creation of Israel in 1948. The then Secretary of State [of the Vatican] had sent an emissary to Israel’s attorney general, Haim Cohen, carrying a request that Israel should restage the trial of Christ and, of course, reverse the original verdict. Once that was done, the Vatican would formally recognize Israel.

My google-fu has failed me on this one — so help me, /r/AskHistorians, you’re my only hope...

Every time I look for information on this, I don’t find any satisfactory answers. They all tend to be speculative with no specific mention of cause

After reading about Rudolph Hess' failed efforts to strike a war-ending deal by flying to Scotland to meet with the Duke of Hamilton, it got me thinking. We all know that his whole plan fell through but it was interesting to learn that apparently he had come up with this whole idea on his own. Supposedly, Hitler was furious after hearing about it and even declared Hess a traitor. Hess was stripped of all his titles, ranks, and Hitler even ordered him shot on sight if he ever returned to Germany.

Based on that decree, it got me thinking when i was recently watching a documentary on the Nuremberg Trials. There are several scenes in the trial footage that show Hess sitting right next to some of the other big name Nazis such as Herman Goering. There's moments where they seem to be laughing and joking with one another.

My question is how did the other defendants view/react to Hess? If Hitler declared Hess a traitor, it would be safe to assume that the other big name Nazis viewed him in the same light right? I can't imagine they would go back to being buddies with him after years of him being outcasted. Is it possible that some of these other Nazis agreed with his plan to broker peace? Since Hitler was dead at this point, maybe they just didn't feel the need to go along with Hitler's wishes? Does anyone know if there are stories or documents out there examining the interactions between these trial defendants? I just find it interesting that they seemed to look so jovial with a man who was declared a traitor to Germany by the Furher.

Ps. I've also read some stories that discussed the possibility that the Nazi hierarchy, including Hitler, knew about or even encouraged Hess' plan. If you know about that and would like to expand I would appreciate that too.

-Sorry for any typos, currently writing this on my phone on the go.

I am under the impression that the P-51 was very powerful in the last years of the war. I want to know what fighter plane was used the most both in carrier based combat in the Pacific and bomber escort in Europe. I have been told it was the P-38 by a friend, but I'm looking for evidence that would support or contradict that claim.

I'm not talking specifically kills attributed to pilots of these aircraft, but more in the sense of production. Which plane was produced the most and as a result used the most as a fighter plane during the war?

Bonus question: what about for slaves in other environments, who aren't personally serving wealthy Romans? If I'm a slave, say, on a large plantation or in the mines, what are the security arrangements like, and do I have a chance of escaping? Where to?

Edit: a commenter suggested specifiying where in Rome and in what period I'm asking about, so I'm going to say during Augustus's reign, after the end of the civil wars. But if you want to answer for any other period I'll take that as well.

Alexander II emancipated the serfs and was on his way to making a constitution when he died, while his son proceeded to return to complete autocracy what caused this rift in views between the two monarchs?