After France fell to the Nazis many people say Britain was on there own until the us joined the conflict. This is simply not true because the commonwealth and free France were still in the conflict so why do people say they were on their own?

It's a sort of popular lore that there was this fear among some of the Manhattan Project scientists that there was a chance that the nuclear reaction from the first atomic bomb test wouldn't stop and would continue, destroying the entire world in nuclear hellfire.

Was there a genuine fear among some of the scientists involved in the project or were they more or less confident that the reaction would, at some point, stop after the bomb went off?

I understand the idea that these reforms were a single set of principles that a single person wrote down at a specific point in time is not the way many historians think it worked. But to the degree which we know anything about specific specific military reforms, how would they be:

1. Conceived of - was there academic study of military doctrine to draw on? Would somebody in the field simply have a bright idea? Would they bring it up in a meeting? Were there brainstorming sessions? How were specific proposals made and by whom?

2. Designed - how would it go from bright idea to a more specific plan? Would you delegate to a subordinate to go put some ideas about maniple structure down "on paper" which you would review? Would a commander spend a lot of time figuring it out themselves? Would consuls or other senior leaders be elected on the back of specific reforming policy proposals?

3. Implemented - Would you wait until the formation of the next army to put your new ideas in to action, or would you go out one day and tell the men you wanted them to divide up into young, middle aged and old, and try something out?

These are all probably quite unrealistic examples, but I'm specifically interested in the generation and design of the proposals to the extent we know anything about it.

Hi all, I'm wondering about the historical context around Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

I've been taught that before Darwin the predominant theory on the origin of species was the theological explanation to which he provided a scientific alternative. However, it seems to me that he can't be the only one who looked for a scientific explanation on this subject.

Therefore, I'm wondering:

1) How groundbreaking was his new theory?

2) Were there scientific explanations on the subject already?

3) Was he the first to introduce the idea of common ancestors of species? Or did others have similar ideas after studying fossils?

I’m trying understand the prophets of islam and their genealogical relations as a christian who knows nearly nothing about islam. According to “Family Tree of Muhammad” on wikipedia Arfakhshad was the Son of Sam who is the Son of Noah. He is important to me because he is an ancestor of Abraham and I also have no clue who his brother Iram is. They seem like they are important as they split two trees of prophets. I’m guessing that their names are simply a different spelling and that’s what’s making this so difficult.

I’ve recently “discovered” the 1978-79 Iranian Revolution, and from what little I’ve seen, I don’t really understand why it led to the creation of a Theocratic Republic.

It would make more sense if the Pahlavi dynasty was Christian or even just a different sect of Islam, and oppressed the populace for being Shia Muslims, but as far as I know they held the same religious beliefs as modern-day Iran, and presumably the revolutionaries as well.

So why then, would they create a theocracy instead of a secular government? If you take Communist revolutions into consideration, they usually all-but get rid of religion. Yet it seems like Iran went the complete opposite direction with it.

How did the French survive being at war with so many powerful nations in the late revolutionary period? From what I understand, their economy was crashed, and I assume they didn’t have much money in the treasury. How could they afford these wars? How were they able to fend off such powerful nations as Habsburg Austria?

I was reading earlier about the Ikwhan al-Safa and the Encylopedia ascribed to them and it seems like an extremely interesting and fascinating document. However, I am still somewhat confused about the group itself. It seems like a lot of arguments are made about if this was a specifically Shiite or sectarian group but the materials that are easily visible at first glance don't seem to say a lot beyond the Encyclopedia ascribed to them. Are there references to the Ikhwan in other texts, or citations to the Encyclopedia that provide additional information on its author(s)?

(apologies if I have asked this question before, I don't always have the best memory.

On another social media site, people have said that is incorrect to use "Medieval" to buildings/sites outside of Europe but during the same time period.

Do historians refer to the Middle Ages as something else when they are referring to America, Africa, and/or the far east? This attitude seems really dismissive and Euro-centric to me.

Thank you!

I spent a year in China teaching English with a bunch of coworkers from various countries in the Anglosphere. One of the things many of them experienced was a strong craving for western foods that weren't easy to acquire in our city. As open minded as we tried to be, having little familiar food took its toll and many of us lost our appetites and a great deal of weight over time.

I'm just curious why you don't really see this aspect of foreign travel emphasized in adventure stories. Was it because food was relatively simple then, so there wasn't much difference between cultures? Or was it the simple fact that anything tastes good after months of hardtack and salt pork?

I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and on the page "Knight banneret" there is a paragraph on the post title. The source for this is listed as page 364 of Sir Llewellyn Woodward's 'Great Britain and War of 1914–1918'. Obviously the names eventually selected for use have a direct comparision to the role that officer plays (a 'Wing Commander' commands a wing, etc) but do we know what names were considered before the final decision?

I know we cannot regain some of the documents pertaining to historical events, everyday life, plays, etc, but have we forever lost anything that would help us in math, science, chemistry, engineering?

Hmm, after I wrote this I guess I know the answer. If we lost it forever we wouldn't know if it was lost or ever existed.

I know the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the 400s and the Viking Age began in the 700s, but still, surely, a sort of proto-Viking Norse society must have existed around the time, so I guess I have two questions:

1. Did the Norse ever encounter the Romans?
2. What were the Norse up to around the time of the Romans?

Hi everyone, I’m writing a book set in Elizabethan England where the main character has to make shirts out of thistledown. I’m having a hard time knowing how she’d go about it, having absolutely no sewing or tailoring experience myself. She starts with the raw material, but then what’s the next step?

It doesn’t have to be super accurate to the time period or even the material used. I’m just wondering if y’all know any old clothes making resources I can read.

Thanks in advance!

Hello!
From the way I understand it, the German Empire was a sort of Federation, even through Prussia, hence the Empire itself held a lot of power over the other states that made up the German Empire. But my question is, were the noble rulers (Kings, Grand Dukes, Dukes, etc) involved in the governance of their lands? Or were they're titles merely ceremonial, leaving the actual governance of their state to other people?

What are some good books or other sources on the Kingdom of Cyprus (1192-1489)? I've noticed that despite lasting as an independent kingdom for nearly 3 centuries that its very difficult to find information on, and even the wiki page is super short.
As a secondary question, whats the reason for this? Is it due more to a lack of public interest, or a lack of surviving documents?

In Europe, soccer teams have names like Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Barcelona FC.

In other sports, including in Europe, teams tend to have mascot-style nicknames: see all US teams like the Denver Broncos (NFL) and the Chicago Bulls (NBA); and then Sydney Roosters (Australian rugby league), Catalan Dragons (French rugby league), Wigan Warriors (English rugby league).

Why don’t American teams use names like “Denver FC”? And how did the American style spread to other countries in non-soccer sports?