The original Republicans, the Federalists, the National Republican Party, the Democratic-Republican Party, Torries, Whigs, Southern and Northern Democrats, there's easily a dozen political parties that have put candidates into the Presidency but no longer exist.

My question has 3 main parts:

1. To the general public what did the final years of these parties look like?

2. What were their final candidates like?

3. What happened in the years between the death of one party and a return to the equilibrium of a 2-party system?

Edit: In the interest of answers feel free to cherry pick which particular question you'd like to answer

What is the oldest known recipe still being brewed?

I should have added, "as the language of ordinary people".

Today, a lot of countries have rural populations that are socially conservative and religious contrasted with a relatively secular minded urban population. For example Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. The conservative populace living in villages or small towns pushes back against secularism and liberal thought from prevailing especially if they outnumber the people living in large, cosmopolitan cities.

I'm assuming that the population in Western Europe during the period from 1500-1800 was also comprised of people living mostly in rural areas. Therefore were there similar problems of rural pushback against urban secularism and decreased religiosity as in the present day?

Did the proliferation of books help? Were the books coming off the newly invented printing press, making their way to the small towns and villages?

Or were the demographics such that maybe the rural population wasn't as large a majority?

Did the people in the small villages even realise the changes that were occurring and and how the culture was changing towards rationalism and liberalism and away from superstition and religion?

Were there any rabble rousing priests ala today's village Mullahs who sensed the move away from religion and try to stop it?

And for that matter, the similarly themed "The Eleven Nations of North America"?

The Communist victory against overwhelming numbers and overwhelming odds always struck me as a very improbable occurence. But was its occurence really such a "fragile" thing that depended on many circumstances to be tuned exactly in its favour? Or was it a certainty that was largely impervious to changes of circumstance? And if so, beyond what point was it so certain?

Recently I found out that over 70% of generals in the Yugoslav Army were either Serb or Montenegrin. How did Tito, as an ethnic Croat, reconcile this bias?

I know vikings were on average only 170cm tall but wasn't that the standard height for people in middle ages to begin with?

[deleted]

I am specifically referencing that when I look at maps, I often see that phenomenon happening.

For example:

The Roman Empire often just held control of the coast of North Africa, but muslims seem to go well beyond that. Also and especially true for Morrocco where different rulers often went well beyond the border, you'd see marked as southern border of the Roman Empire. The Arabian Peninsula is also a good example. As well as Persia, and the steppe areas east of the caspian sea. Or north of the caucasian mountains.

Or crimea. Before the byzantine Empire was replaced by the Ottomans it held crimea, but often not even the whole island, but just the southern coastal strip. The Ottomans on the other hand often went well beyond that and held huge areas of modern ukraine.

The german Wikipedia says the Wehrmacht entered Czechoslovakian borders at six and Prague at nine o'clock. As an inhabitant of Prague, when could I have taken the last plane/ car/ train out of the city and would that have been advertised as that? Also, where would I go? Poland?

I'm reading through everything I can find about Octavian before he landed in Italy to determine his inheritance and all I can come up with is the funeral oration of Caesar's sister, what did he do that was so impressive to the imperator of the Gallic wars? And there are continuous references to him becoming ill, repeatedly, so my impression is that he was physically quite frail (the battle of forum gallorum, not that I can blame his propaganda team, how do you sell yourself as god-emperor if you've got a chronic disease?), not a skilled strategos, but a skilled dictator of tasks to appropriately skilled persons within his sphere of influence. Plz halp

I've done some research, and there are many great books about the rebuilding efforts post WWII.

My question is, wouldn't there be nuclear fallout and radiation that would prevent rebuilding for many many years?

It also went into Hitlers "feel good" doctor who kept him on his supposed even kneel.

It made a very blunt claim as to attribute the success of their blitzkrieg tactics on some level to the use of drugs, to allow soldiers to cope with it.

I forget the documentary.

If someone does such a good job as president as to gain the votes of the majority of citizens democratically multiple times why shouldn't they be able to go more than two terms? What reasons or justifications did congress have when creating the 22nd amendment?

So I just finished reading Tony Judt's Postwar (If anybody has any opinions on that, I'd be glad to read them). In it, Judt argues that although various Eastern European anti-communist movements provided the spur for dissolution, the primary reason behind it was Gorbachev's refusal to enforce the Brezhnev doctrine and intervene militarily, which Judt believes would crush any of the independence movements with ease. Should his argument considered accurate and/or valid?

I'm reading Empire of Liberty by Gordon Wood, and a sentence in it has left me confused.

"Fearful of being overawed by Hamilton's expertise, Congress requested that Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit be submitted in writing."

Clearly I'm missing something here, because I don't see how this is out of the ordinary. They didn't have typewriters then, so he would have to submit it in writing. The printing press doesn't make much sense either, due to it being a government report meant only for congress. Either there's some obscure congressional procedure I'm ignorant of, or my perceptions of the writing technology of the decade are wildly off! (Or I'm missing something obvious, as I sometimes do).

Sorry if this question is too specific, or if I didn't give enough context. Trust me, I gave as much context as the book did.