Philip II was the son of Charles V. He inherited a massive colonial empire. And were his father had many successes in five wars against France, even in some smaller battles against the Arabs, his son didn't have that much succes. He fought an eighty year war against the republic, which he in a way he lost. He led a big armada to England and was defeated although his great resources from his colonies. He had a very strict rule towards Catholicism severly punished anyone who thaught otherwise. His father although not a perfect monarch, he didn't win every battle (like Algiers or in a way in Hungary) has had more succes in politics then his son. Is this view that I have of Philip II as a less competent monarch correct? Or was it rather that the other state's were beginning to get more powerfull? Is it right to assume that with the beginning of Philip Spain was getting in decline in Europe? Or am I just totally wrong and am I missing some important facts?

Is the tapestry an important historical source, or just a reinforcement or illustration of events know through the written record?

As opposed to the colonization of the Americas, which were across the Atlantic Ocean, Africa was close to Europe; it was known and fairly well charted, as far as I know. Why had widespread colonization not begun long before that of the Americas?

I'm fascinated by Diocletian's rule but I can't seem to find much information on him. What I (think I) know is that he fought the Sarmations and Carpi in 294 and 296, then moved towards Egypt and quelled the rebellion there in 297, finally taking Alexandria in 298. Basically I'm looking for somewhat of a timeline of his military operations, namely what battles he commanded in and who he fought against, maybe some details on the battles themselves as well. Is this information available?

What writings do we have from this period.

With respect to both POWs and civilians in occupied and colonial territories, why was Japan so brutal towards so many non-Japanese?

So the Japanese words for newer concepts or objects are often Western words pronounced in a Japanese way, like コンピューター (Konpyūtā) for computer, so was kissing a modern concept?

Hello all! I want to ask about the history of the Taliban and the U.S. In the 70's and 80's, during the cold war, when Russia was occupying Afghanistan were those rebels fighting Russian occupation the future Taliban? Also, did the U.S arm those same rebels who would eventually become the Taliban to get Russia out? Any articles about the historical relationship between the Taliban and the U.S would be greatly appreciated! Also, correct anything that you find wrong about my question to give me clarity and better facts about what occured

I have been reading that the term Romanization is starting to fall out of favor among historians and archeologists, so perhaps I should rephrase the question. In other words, how quickly did it take for citizens of Gaul to start to incorporate Roman culture into their everyday life? Why were the Romans so successful in spreading their culture across Gaul?

I'm sure everyone who's reading this has seen at least one article decrying television or video games as the death of intelligent communication/interaction. What I'm curious about is if this is a new cultural trend or have new forms of communication always been met with similar resistance?