It's fairly well-known that last names from both Western and Eastern worlds describe either the role of a person within society (Smith, Baker) or their lineage (Karlson, O'neil, MacArthur) or another identifying name. I have a few questions regarding these naming etiquettes.

• Firstly if a person in say 1200 AD was born to Ma and Pa Baker, and thus was given the name Baker, what would happen if they chose a different profession? Would it be common for those whose surnames came from their profession to keep within that, or could there have been numerous blacksmiths called Baker or Tanner?

• Secondly, when did people begin to adopt professions as last names instead of lineage? Names like MacDonnel or Stevenson act as identifiers for people by telling them their Father's name, or their clan or where they are from (Vonnegut - Von = from: thus From-Gutte). But taking a profession as your last name is much different. It isn't related to your family, in as much as it couldn't tell someone if you were the son of John Baker or Bob Baker, and it also means that you could take the name Baker, and two towns over another family takes the name Baker (sorry for using this example so much) so suddenly there are two separate families that are now connected.

• following from this, would it be possible that people changed from family names to trade names? Or did these surname types develop independently?

And lastly, when did last names become 'fixed'? I can't speak for naming conventions outside the Anglosphere, but most people carry on last names from generation to generation even if they don't make sense (John Stevenson, son of Bob Stevenson). I realise that other names must have been fixed for a long time, clan names for instance (MacArthur would apply to everyone from Clan MacArthur.

I would love some more info on naming conventions other than Anglo ones, and obviously the answers to (and maybe the clearing of misconceptions) my questions are much appreciated.

Why not show off your WMD by bombing a military base in the countryside? I'm having a hard time believing that the US really cared at all about the civilians they killed.

I'm not sure of an example, America might not be a good example as it had other allies. What happened to colonies that did not get picked up by other nations?

So, the 4th of July came and went, and as per usual, I was stuck at work all day and night. The life of a cook. So, finally had some downtime and was talking to my mother, and somehow the conversation drifted towards history. Every time someone brings up WWII, she always starts on about how we weren't "the saviors" that toppled the Nazis, but instead were just sitting on our heels here in "Fortress America" waiting for Hitler to exhaust his resources on trying to blitz England. Now, history was never her strong point (she's an accountant), and I'm fairly certain she is way wrong on this (given that she completely ignores the fact we were definitely in a full scale war with Japan by this point) but I would like someone with better credentials than myself to weigh in on this. Were we really just sitting back and waiting, or was the US playing a more active role in the European theater prior to D-Day?

Just found out about this part of history and I was wondering how much was known about them

I've heard a bunch of conflicting reasons why the hussars would wear wings, from the sound the wings made while charging to the visual reason that people would think angels of death where descending on them. Is there an actual, documented reason, from that time period, why they wore them?

Germany shared a huge border with France so why did Germany attacked from Belgium and expanded the conflict. Was there any real benefit to Germany for attacking Belgium?

I've also heard that Russia had only on tank factory, so they tore town that factory brick by brick, and rebuilt closer. Is this also true?

If I was the third son of the count of Northumbria, born around 1100, how would I spend my time? Knowing that I wouldn't inherit lands, would I train to become a knight? If so, what would I do during peacetime?

Did second and third sons of lords ever become mercenaries? Did most non-heirs have the own lands to manage, or would they just mooch off their fathers' and brothers' wealth and success?

I am asking about how the Turks of Ottoman treated the non-muslim?

• Where they judged by their own laws or laws implemented by the Sultan himself?

• Did they have high roles in the court ?

• Where there any genocides ? (religious ones)

• How did they treat the Jews? If there were a minority in the Ottoman Empire?

• And Thanks in Advance :3

I have read that some Europeans were granted the title of samurai during this period, but I'm wondering how a European person would typically be treated when, say, walking down the street in a city.

Do we know what illness(es) were involved? What was the population loss in numbers, if we can estimate? What approximate time period was the die-off of local humanity in?