Essentially I'm asking about the origins of this strange story. Is any of it true? Are there any accepted historical explanations? Thanks in advance!

The Achaemenid Empire, The Sassanian Empire, The Mongols, The Safavid Dynasty and the Mughal Empire all had control of Afganistan in their history.... what made this possible, and why did the country pick up its reputation if it's been successfully dominated in the past?

I've been researching the biography of an American OSS agent and came across a reference I have not been able to confirm.

Prior to his joining the OSS, he had been in the French Foreign Legion and was captured during the German invasion of France. He escaped, and on his way back to the United States he, in his own words: "stayed in Paris for about a month, helping to pull a job on Gestapo headquarters." The month in question would have been some time between 1 Oct 1941 and 28 Nov 1941.

These dates are highly reliable, but the vagueness of "pull a job" and "Gestapo headquarters" leaves room for interpretation. It could conceivably have been anything from a prison break at Avenue Foch, an assassination at Rue de la Pompe, a break-in at Avenue Henri Martin, etc.

This is pretty far outside my area of expertise, so any ideas or references will be greatly appreciated, and I would be happy to provide more detail if it would be useful.

How were church clocks "synchronized" in middle ages? How "close" were the times shown by different church clock from different cities?

If so, it would obviously be contrary to their beliefs on race, right? I've heard this for a long time, but I'd like to hear from someone who is actually knowledgeable in historical matters

Clarification: I (the worker) am an Aryan certified by the government. Blond hair, blue eyes, no mixed genes.

My first question is whether I am indeed correct in my understanding that the practice of both taking mistresses/concubines by noblemen was both widespread and acceptable. By acceptable, I mean the sort of thing for which there was no, even theoretical, objections most people would raise (jealously from a man's wife being some else entirely), and for which the person engaging in it would feel no need to conceal it, or that the practice would cause any sense of scandal. By comparison, I know that, at the very least, it was not unheard for clergymen to have mistresses, but as far as I know, catholic doctrine is rather clear on requiring the ordained to be celibate, and of course monks and nuns took vows of celibacy. Even if there were instances of clergy engaging in this practice as a sort of open secret, it was still objectively a violation of the "rules," as it were (at least after whenever it was that the church began to require priests to be celibate). If I am incorrect here, please correct me.

In any case, clearly the social mores have changed. If, for example, Prince William were found to have a mistress, this would be a huge scandal. I guess my question is what caused this shift in our understanding, in the west, of what marriage entails, in terms of what it means to commit adultery or to be unfaithful? Was this practice of sanctioned extramarital affairs something which included all men? Was it merely the noble? The rich? Was there a continuum? If I were, for example, to go back in time and accuse some monarch of committing adultery for having a mistress, how would he respond (besides, you know, executing me)? Would this claim even make sense to him? Now obviously, just because someone is Christian does not mean he or she is going to perfectly adhere to all the precepts of their faith. Obviously, there are many instances of noblemen engaging in unchristian activities. However, what has always confused me about the practice of them having concubines is that contemporary writers do not seem to decry it as sinful as they might for other activities. What I mean is that it does not seem to have been (generally speaking) something which was viewed as a moral failing, or something which was notable or unusual enough to make any more than passing reference to. In the same way, if I were to write some polemic about someone today, it would never occur to me to list his being married as immoral, perhaps he is abusive towards his wife, or the circumstances under which he married her were wrong, but the attribute of merely being married is not something either surprising or unusual enough to make specific mention of, or a negative attribute. That being said, obviously people's views are not homogeneous, so I would love to see counterexamples to my impression of the general views of the times.

I went to the Killing Fields last April and I remember hearing there that the U.S. government actually supported Pol Pot, at least indirectly, following his government's exile via Vietnamese intervention. To what extent is this true, and why?

Other related questions: What was the international response when news of the atrocities leaked through? Why did the Vietnamese invade in the first place? Was it for humanitarian reasons? Why did China support Pol Pot against the Vietnamese?

I've heard of uprisings in the holocaust, but I've never heard of coordinated uprisings during slavery.

If not, were there at least attempts/successful attempts to overthrow masters?

I've been reading his Discourses on Livy, and there are several points (IE Book II, Ch. 6) where he seems to criticise Christianity for various reasons. Was this evidence of problems he specifically had with Christianity or an appraisal of the role of religion in politics?

My library does not have any books on the Irish Republican Army, I am most likely going to have to order some new books. I was specifically looking for stuff on Bobby Sands. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I was reading Kalevala, the Finnish national epic, recently. At one point, a hero named Lemminkäinen is instructed to capture three animals owned by the god Hisi: a swan, a deer, and a flaming horse. Is this just odd translation, or did the Finns at this time have horses?

Most discussion I see of the reception of Classical literature and philosophy in the late antique Christian world focuses on the Latin West and the Latin church-the Classical authors who receive the most emphasis are Latin and the early Christian writers cited in these discussions are predominantly Western or more prominent in the Western World. How did the process of discussing, confronting, and ultimately absorbing(or rejection) Classical literature proceed in the Eastern Christian world both in the proto-Eastern Orthodox Church and in the "Oriental"(Syriac Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Ethopian, Assyrian Church of the East, etc)? Did the lines of arguments differ and was that difference shaped by the fact that the Eastern Mediterranean was largely greek-speaking? Either general overviews or case studies(if more practical) would be interesting.