I have a debate in a week and I’m struggling to find information about my topic which is “Strong State Governments are needed to maintain freedom and prosperity”

In what ways in your opinion would a strong state government benefit the colonies instead of a strong federal?

All I’ve found discredits my claims. Any help is appreciated.

Try to google gothic clothing or gothic house. The results you get are not historical gothic style. What is common terminology people use in english for that time and style? Also why are there so many ranaisance fairs but so little gothic fairs? It seems to me that gothic is more medieval then renaisance. Is this just coincidence and btw nothing against renaisance fairs. In my country we seem to be more centred about gothic times probably because we were indipendant in gothic while we lost independence in renaisance this is reason why term gothic is more used here then it seems to be used in english to me.

Hello, American Midwesterner here. I was on a blind date once shortly after Evita came out in the movies (I was about 19). I mentioned how the movie was good and she seemed interesting.

His reply was "no. she was the devil. well some would say that." and he seemed put off. He was irritated enough where I felt uncomfortable asking him why. All I really said in reply was "Really? hmm. Hollywood I guess." Date ended awkwardly.

The only thing I knew about him was that he was an American too, with Italian heritage, and he was a "smart college guy". But this moment stayed with me. It comes to mind year after year whenever I see Evita revival posters, or even just seeing it on TV sometimes.

SO, was he right? Meaning, yes there are groups of people who feel this way because of certain events in history. I gained the impression that she had a positive legacy. OR could it be a simple case of him thinking of the wrong movie or even an entirely different person?

I ask in part because on the surface the two (EDIT: nominal) systems seem very much aligned, but deeper down, the samurai of Japan seem to have had a martial role far more strongly than the Chinese gentry, whom it was generally expected would be cultivating the civil arts. This gives me pause as to considering the other three rungs as being equivalent as well: was the Japanese conception of a peasant, artisan or merchant the same as the Chinese? Or am I overthinking things?

Did he not have time to during his life, were the resources not there?

I have had this question in my mind for quite some time.

What is the best way to go throughout history and read? Would it be the primary texts, written histories throughout the ages that are still published? Or read contemporary history books?

My trouble is that I am used to the idea of a canon, or the greatest books written within a discipline, and with history I can’t seem to find that, other than books like “ A history of historical writing” but even those authors listed do not cover every time in history.

So in that case I would go to contemporary texts? Which ones would I pick? How do I know one is better and holds more academic value than the other?

[deleted]

more than likely they didnt have internet at their disposal, so if im a noble or a king and i want to learn some language what resources do i have?

One of the excuses I hear for unrestricted submarine warfare is that the Germans had no choice once the British started illegally arming merchant ships. My question is was it actually illegal under international law to arm a merchant ship just for defense? I know the Hague convention puts down guidelines for Auxiliary Cruisers, and the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law basically banned privateers, but I haven't found anything for arming a ship just for defense.

I'm currently on the hunt for a quality English-language monograph on late antique Gaul that covers the transition from late-Roman to Merovingian society. As an alternative, I'd also be very glad to get my hands on something a little more specialized, like Kulikowski's Late Roman Spain and its Cities or Conant's Staying Roman, as well as quality regional surveys. I've gone through Wickham's bibliography in Framing the Middle Ages and Buchberger's bibliography in Shifting Ethnic Identities in Spain and Gaul, but seem to be having trouble finding something that isn't strictly focused on the Franks.

Any help, including pointers at authors or bibliographies that could lead me to an answer, would be very much appreciated.

From what I understand, Americans identified more with their states than with the US as a whole well into the 1800s. When did that start to shift and why? Was it after the Civil War?

[deleted]

The book Shogun by James clavell

I'm listening to the audio book so I don't know the page. But it's the Franciscan friar in the jail scene.

He says that on the samurai had actual names. everyone else just went by their job or their job plus a short description like blind fisherman.

I realize that the character in the book May simply have been mistaken as part of his misunderstanding Japanese culture but I can't tell.

Did peasants have surnames? What about given names?

I know when the european conquerors came to America, a big part of the native population died because of the diseases the europeans brought with them. But why didn't the opposite happened too? Why didn't the europeans die from the native American's diseases?

I got in to an argument with someone about this. I didn't dispute that the government was very important to its success but he called it a "command economy operation" and that seemed to me to be going way too far. My understanding is something like the Roman state operating infrastructure, like keeping the seas free of pirates, but the actual trade itself was handled by merchants and the government became more directly involved when the the grain reached Ostia and then they shipped it to Rome for the grain dole. Am I wrong?

Would they still call it capitalist, is it feudal?

How would they know what they were doing?

[deleted]