For a while now, the "western" view of Islam today has been influenced in no small part by islamic terrorism (or Jihadism or whatever you want to call it) and a general sense of militancy and war. While talking with friends today, we realized that we can't remember how people regarded Islam before 9/11 (we're in our late 20s). Since I'd assume that this was a tendency even before 9/11, going back to the mujahedeens fight in the Soviet/Afghan war and the rise of islamic terrorism afterwards (please correct me if I'm wrong), I'm mostly asking how it was before that, but after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I'd be happy about bibliographical suggestions as well.

i'm reading "legacy of ashes" and started to think about the history of spying. and im wondering if beyond army scouts, the Romans had either a domestic or military intelligence "legion"? and if they did was such a thing a formal arm or was it an ad hoc affiar?

Very confused on this topic, can someone maybe help me out?

I've always wanted to know this. Could Hitler actually speak English or not?

Yes I know Tanya/Red Alert is from 1996, but I'm asking about before that.

To be clear, I'm interested in characters (units) in western real time strategy games which have unique capabilities and of which only 1 copy can be built/acquired during normal campaign games.

Were there any such characters? Were they gung-ho commando-style units like Tanya, or were they very different?

I know that Greek hoplites made use of spears, but wouldn't the breastplate worn by those soldiers have stopped the spear from doing any damage? Wouldn't a sword have been better as the soldier could aim at the exposed arms and legs? Also if anyone knows how could they are against other types of armor I would love to know that to.

I'm a history student specializing in the study of revolutionary/social movements and wanted to learn more about the Chechen independence movement and its history (ideally going all the way back to the Russian Empire). I have a basic understanding from my study of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, and I've read classics like "Hadji Murat", but wanted to get deeper into the subject. Any suggestions?

I read something interesting somewhere and I wanted to know if there was any truth to it.

I read that airmen flying Bomber missions in WWII often didn't know when they'd be sent out on a dangerous mission. The first sign most of them had that today was the day they'd be dicing with death again was when they came down to the mess and and got served bacon and/or real eggs. Apparently since these were rationed they were only given to the airmen who were about to fly over Germany.

Does anyone know if this is true, and do you have any other details of pre-mission routines, briefings or rituals airmen got up to before flying out to what may well be their death?

The Russian Civil War is a historical event that fascinates me, but one that I never did learn very much about in my history classes. From my admittedly rather simplified understanding, the main reasons why the White Russians lost were as follows:

• The Red faction controlled the factories and railroads, allowing them to better equip and deploy their forces.
• The White Russians were brazenly antisemitic, alienating some of the independent factions from their cause.
• The various factions of the Whites were unable or unwilling to cooperate effectively.

The first two points were explained rather well in previous r/askhistorians threads, but the last one continues to baffle me. I know that the White Russians were not a unified force: it's a blanket term referring to many separate, smaller forces that were led by former Tsarist officers. But why were these various factions unable or unwilling to work together? Did they have radically differing superobjectives beyond defeating the Communists? Was it a matter poor communication that prevented them from coordinating their forces? Or are there other factors I've missed entirely?

My biggest gripe is that many texts that I've read focus heavily on the ideological component behind Fascist leadership, and rarely on the structural/sociological support that allowed Fascist leaders, like Mussolini and Hitler, to remain in power. Corporatism, apparently, seems to have played a huge role in bringing these leaders into power, but I'm not sure how corporatism worked in Fascist countries, especially Germany because I would have imagined that Hitler solidified his powerbase beyond the reach of any corporations by the late 1930s/early 1940s. I would really appreciate some more insight into the Fascist state apparatus!

EDIT: I'm also crossposting this to /r/AskSocialScience, since I think this involves more than just historical information.

Is it true that since the Kievan Rus enslaved so many slavic speakers that the slavic tongue became associated with slavery?

In Christian stories, "Hell" is hot, full of fires and typically "down" or deep underground.

In science, we know that the inside of the earth is magma, hot and melting metals.

However, given timing, one would expect that the Christian characterization of "Hell" came before we knew the center of the earth was molten magma. Is that so?

What were the relative timelines on the Christian story of Hell and our scientific understanding of the deep earth and magma? Why is there a co-incidence of these two stories if the Christian story came so much before our science understanding?

I was looking at some family history. Up until maybe the 1840s I can trace it back fine but before that they are (don't know the proper word) paternal (?) names like ben X which after the 1840s or so change to surnames which are inherited, like Goldberg (to use a stereotypical name). Why the change? Did it happen across Europe at the same time and were there very late holdouts where families still didn't use surnames like that?

I know we had a substantial bombing campaign of North Vietnam but why wasn't there just a full on invasion?