What where the most important and lethal aspects that lead to the fall of the Portuguese Empire? I do know about the personal Union with the Spanish, although I heard that they weren’t off so bad during that union as they had enough autonomy and even won a few wars against the Dutch. In the end though they wanted to secede, as the main reason was the loss of the colonies, so is it Spain’s fault Portugal lost its colonies and the empire fell or what were the other aspects that lead to their demise? And why has Portugal been passive in world affairs ever since then and has not tried to reclaim their‚glory‘, or did it seem ‚impossible‘ to them?

I know that there are different typographical traditions (E.g. Blackletter, Roman, etc.) but how did these different traditions emerge? Who were the actors who shaped them, when did one outpace the other (why do Europeans now use a Roman script rather than say Fraktur), and more broadly what are their origins?

Similarly, how did this interact with handwriting? I know that there was something called Carolingian minuscule, but were there other miniscules, did the Carolingian one branch off into multiple traditions, etc.? For that matter, in English we have "print" and "cursive" and I think this is true in German as well. How did these two different styles develop?

And how were these transmitted? I know that there are something called incunable, which I think were handwritten books, but is that one particular style of book or is it a general term. How were people taught the scripts? Through schoolbooks, tutoring, individual guides, etc.?

As a final question, how do historians actually read this? I'm struggling with reading Fraktur, let alone the various other scripts.

I have heard that historically Southeast Asian cultures tended to be less patriarchal, with women having relatively more autonomy and gender roles being somewhat less rigidly defined, compared to societies in South and East Asia. To what extent is this true? Do we know why these differences may have originated?

I really love history but am not really sure how to start getting into it. I can't really decide a specific section/era of history to focus on so I figured a medium depth overview spanning over a multi volume series would be a good idea to start with if a good one exists. Preferably not super dry as I am new to history. Also, if you have any recommendations for really interesting eras/civilizations in history you would suggest focusing on I would love to hear those as well. Thanks!

How come Latin became the liturgical language of Christianity instead of Aramaic? It makes more sense for the language that Jesus Christ spoke to be the liturgical language instead of the language spoken by the people who tried to eradicate the faith.

I try to keep an open mind, but a lot of what she said seemed to be speculation, so I want to get multiple opinions on this. Wikipedia seems to say that it's a lot less clear than she's led the class to believe, and she's raised some red flags that make me suspect that she's biased towards the Goddess movement.

She's made the claim that academia is covering up goddess worship, by shelving and downplaying evidence such as venus figurines, and by "writing them off" as porn/depictions of individuals/fertility idols. This is a red flag to me, because it reminds me of a lot of conspriacy theories, where it monopolizes interpretation of evidence by calling other theories cover-ups. What is the consensus among historians about this subject?

She's also made the claim that pre-patriarchal societies were led by priestesses, which were/are written off as temple prostitutes because (according to her) they still practiced free sex, when the new, patriarchal society of mesopotamia was monogamous. This seems pretty believable compared to her other claims of cover-ups, but I'd still like to see a historian's opinion on this.

I'm open to clarification, if needed.

I am very interested in history books about the Civil War and the time period surrounding it. I want to learn more about what the government of the Confederate states was like as well as how life was in general during the Civil War in the Confederacy. Are there any good history books that could be recommended about this subject?

I've been looking at the medieval scholar's life. There's lots of discussion of disputations, but I haven't seen a description of how one would be conducted. Were there formal rules like modern debates?

I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to English-language references on now the disputations were conducted: rules, examples, etc.

My primary interest is in 14th century Oxford.

I may be wrong on this but I always thought of Reconstruction as something that addressed new questions/problems that arose after the war, such as how to incorporate blacks into society, changes needed in the South's government, how to make sure a war didn't happen again, etc. Rather than simply asking how do we fix the damages made by the war.

I always assumed that by wanting to "end" Reconstruction, people were simply against giving rights to blacks, government changes, etc. But, I was told that these people didn't want to end Reconstruction but that they had a different view of Reconstruction: not giving blacks rights and not changing their government, but trying to "get along" with the North and fix the problems that came from the war.

Is there a right or wrong to this? Is my understanding of Reconstruction incorrect? Is my interpretation simply radical Reconstruction?

Honestly, I'm expecting this post to be removed again. I would just like to clarify: this question does not write my paper or even answer the thesis to my question. I am simply trying to make sure I have a firm understanding of Reconstruction before I submit my paper (which I have already written). Thank you.

The title pretty much says it, Why were British subjects in modern Canada content with British rule but Americans were not? Why did the Canadian colonies not join the Patriots in Revolution? Other than the protection of the British Empire was there incentive to stay with Britain?

More specifcally, what sort of medical interventions did he receive and can any of them be attributed to his seemingly miraculous survival? Thanks in advance.