Patronymic last names are (or was until recently) really common here in Scandinavia. I was wondering if, historically there are examples where the father later in life would take on a last name (or be associated by) of their sons?

For example (might wrong regions for such names, but bear with me ) could/would the father of more famous persons such Alexander the Great/Harald Bluetooth get names such as XX Alexfather/ XX Haraldsfather?

So many questions... Slaves that were manumitted received papers declaring their freedom.

• Were these papers carried on the person at all times?
• How frequently might a free black be asked for their papers?
• What civil authority granted the papers?
• How common was it for these papers to be counterfeited? It seems like this wouldn't be hard to do, especially if freedom papers varied by region (I don't know that they did but suspect so). Someone in region A might not recognize the papers from region B and assume they're legit.
• What prevented someone from simply destroying the papers and carrying the person back into slavery (e.g. Twelve Years a Slave)?

Did they plan the possibility of a large seaborne invasion like in normandy?

1. Why were roads in 1930s Japan poor quality?

2. Horikoshi says that he saw a German engineer was leading a team on his first day at Mitsubishi, says he was sent to Europe by Mitsubishi to learn from European manufacturers, says that the Navy would buy Mitsubishi data from European manufacturers, etc. - how did Europe get so far ahead in such a short time and what did these business relationships look like?

3. Horikoshi apparently had a startmonth at Mitsubishi, rather than a startdate - was it common for Japanese companies to not care when new employees showed up?

4. Why was Horikoshi selected to design the Mitsubishi 1MF10?

5. Why was the Japanese Navy providing air support for ground troops during the Second Sino-Japanese War, rather than the Army? Why did the Navy need land-based planes?

6. Had any previous engineers tried to make control surfaces have a proportional response?

7. Horikoshi stated that he opted for a more manpower-intensive design over a resource-intensive, whenever forced to choose, while every Western power except Britain chose the opposite - why did Britain also choose more manpower-intensive designs? (Or did they not?)

8. What metals were other makers using at the time and how did they compare to duralumin?

9. Did Japan have self-sealing fuel tank technology, at the time?

10. The Navy was apparently very secretive regarding air battles during the Second Sino-Japanese War; was this a general policy in Imperial Japan? If not, why?

11. What were Japanese citizens' attitudes towards the war?

12. What were Japanese citizens' attitudes to becoming allies with Nazi Germany?

13. Horikoshi states that he knew immediately that Japan lacked the industrial might to fight a prolonged war with a major power; was this a common thought among the educated class, during WWII? Why did the military and political leadership disagree?

14. Where there any notable engineers and designs at other Japanese companies in this period?

I had been under the (slightly uneducated) impression the US had sort of island hoped its way across the Pacific, clearing out the Japanese forces bit by bit. So I am curious to know why this strategically well located island was left to the Japanese until their eventual defeat.

I have a school project and felt that this would be a really interesting topic, but I'm not sure if there is many sources or general info on the subject. If you guys could help that'd be great.

[deleted]

I am doing an assignment on All the Presidents men and I need to outline some basic inaccuracies of the film, however I am finding it hard since most of the articles I come across are either much to opinionated or focus on tiny insignificant details, it'd be helpful to hear of some of the major (if any) historical inaccuracies this film portrayed. Note that I am 90% done this assignment, and I am not asking for someone to do my homework. I'm stuck because the one section I have left is on inaccuracies in the movie, and I cant find any that seem to be of any importance.

I say this based on a Ted talk in which a woman said something to the effect of, many people in China still live by the guidelines of Confucius.

One of my students asked me if planting a lot of new crops could cause floods? A very good question, but one I am unable to answer. If anyone can think of any other interesting/obscure outcomes of the exchange then they are quite welcome!

It would be inaccurate to state that slavery and labor were uniform across the South correct?

How would a slave's who planted tobacco workday differ from a slave who picked cotton?

Before King Cotton, what would have been the dominant crop in the south?

A professor of mine once stated that different States and plantations had different labor usage. They stated for example a slave in South Carolina would work from sun up to sun down, but a slave in Louisiana would work until they picked n pounds of crop

Finally, as a child, I was taught that the master of the plantation would give the scraps to their slaves.

How true is this? The "scraps" of the master couldn't ever feed a large plantation obviously. Would slaves have been responsible for growing their own crops? Or was this on a case-by-case, state-by-state basis?

So, I was curious the other day about this on a long drive home. I looked up the numbers of US soldiers historically. Generally it appears that prior to WW2 there were ~500,000 enlisted servicemen. Then, we enter the war and there is a spike of over 12 million. After the war it steadily drops, with slight spikes during Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc; but nowhere near the same numbers.

Looking into the number of drafted men during the war, I found that the number of men who enlisted on their own was still enormous comparatively.

I distinctly remember one of my grandparents telling me how disappointed he was when he went to enlist and was turned away due to a heart issue.

To me, it really strikes me as odd that so many men would have signed up for war. According to all accounts retold during High School history lessons, the US citizenry was opposed to even entering the war until Pearl Harbor. And, from my understanding, the allied forces had little idea of the atrocities going on with concentration camps.

So, if they're not aware of the atrocities, then they aren't joining to help stop them.

After 9/11, you can see a tiny rise in the number of servicemen.

I could easily be wrong, but would Pearl Harbor be enough for millions to enlist? It seems doubtful when compared to 9/11 numbers.

So, why did so many want to help in the war effort? What is different about us now that you don't see people lining up to join Americas wars?

I got pulled up by the mods earlier for asking this question in a way that I thought was humorous but which they found distinctly unfunny. Hopefully it'll not rile the mods this time. Any political incorrectness reflected in this question should be attributed to naivete and not malice - I hope you'll let me edit the question than outright remove it.

Let me get to the point. We live in a world dominated by artefacts of Western origin. I am not a historian so I may be way off the mark here, but most of the intellectual underpinnings of these things (which range from technological products to ideas such as democracy, socialism and liberty to entire fields such as modern Science and Mathematics) I think can be traced to have originated in the past 600 years of history in Europe. Not that they didn't exist in some form or the other in other cultures till then, but the pace of production of discoveries and ideas took off at an unprecedented rate in Europe starting from 1500s or so. We're still living in the shadow of this explosive growth of Western civilization.

My question is, what are the distinct philosophical positions or cultural attitudes of the West, i.e., what was in the cultural and intellectual DNA of the West, that caused this Cambrian explosion of ideas to happen specifically there, and not elsewhere?

Or is that even a wrong question to ask?

Right now I am trying to write a fictional history of a country in an alternative europe. I am interested in the period from 1600-1914. I'll probably read about the world wars when I'm done with my other reading. I'm not exactly sure if those are the exact areas I should be studying, but I believe they are. My goal is to get a decent knowledge of those centuries in Europe so I can write a history that is mostly realistic with as few as possible anachronisms. any suggestions for other things that would aid me in achieving those goals are welcome.

The ideas I have for the nation's history so far is that it is a utopia of sorts, it was a democracy rather than a monarchy during the middle ages, and that it became an enlightened absolutist regime in the 17th or 18th century, and that absolutist regime continues to the present day.

Suggestions for what to learn about would be nice; recommending reading for the periods I'm interested in would helpful.

I am doing research for a screenplay I plan on writing about Justinian and Belisarius, but I'm having trouble finding information on what Belisarius's Triumph ceremony was like. The only descriptions of the Roman Triumph that I can find are about the pagan ritual, which includes painting their face red, marching their captives through the city, and sacrificing two bulls to Jupiter. I assume the ceremony was changed to accommodate Christianity, but I am having trouble finding out what was different.

Edit: I would like to sincerely thank this sub for all your help! You guys are great!

I get the impression most laymen Americans think everyone in favor of absolute rulers either vanished, changed their minds or were pushed to the extreme political fringe, almost as soon Washington was sworn in.

Can someone explain to me all about Belgian Congo. Also all the countries involved in this.

So while France does have the OIF (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie), I get the impression it is not as closely linked to its past colonies as England is. Can anyone explain why these countries acted differently towards their ex-colonies? (or correct me if I've falled victim to over-generalisation).

I've been reading : Beyond Colonialism and Nationalism in the Maghrib: History, Culture, and Politics . And I get the impression that France has this kind of patriarchal role over its ex-colonies (as seen by the large amount of funding the government and private companies have invested into these countries over the past few decades), while to me the Commonwealth relationship is an establishment of mutual equality. Can anyone point me towards any more useful sources of offer any insights here? Thanks

Did Navajo leaders more successful at negotiating with the U.S government?

Were they treated better? Did they go to the infamous boarding schools in smaller numbers?