Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 8232425262728293031323334 LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 662

Thread: Need Help with History Homework?

  1. #641
    Ngugi's Avatar TATW & Albion Local Mod
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,687

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    One of the better examples on Allied bombing is Dresden; that firestorm alone with its 20-25 000 dead [half of the UK civlian losses during the entire Battle of Britain; and that caused great indignation in the Allied countries too] and questionable intentions, especially considering Arthur "Bomber/Butcher" Harris overall policy; it is enough for an entire essay

    Kingdom of Lindon preview video out





    DCI: Last Alliance
    - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
    Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
    Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
    Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory

  2. #642

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Or perhaps how it could escalate to that point where even (for the time) liberal democracies felt such a need to take the gloves off.

    Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.

  3. #643

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Germany and Japan are obvious big ones. I'm sure you'd get a better reaction from your teacher if you also discussed lesser known attempts like, I kid you not, improvised (bat guided) fire bombs on Tokyo. But basically I'd say early war bombing was semi-decent and gradually descended into war crime status as seen with Dresden, Nagasaki, etc.

  4. #644

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    to take a good example on how the allied generals acted, you can speak of Montecassino bombing
    I tried to learn about it, but didn't get very far. I don't know much about it yet, but I'll do some digging.

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS England View Post
    I'm sure you'd get a better reaction from your teacher if you also discussed lesser known attempts like, I kid you not, improvised (bat guided) fire bombs on Tokyo.
    This could be very interesting. Bat guided bombs?!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ngugi View Post
    One of the better examples on Allied bombing is Dresden; that firestorm alone with its 20-25 000 dead [half of the UK civlian losses during the entire Battle of Britain; and that caused great indignation in the Allied countries too] and questionable intentions, especially considering Arthur "Bomber/Butcher" Harris overall policy; it is enough for an entire essay
    yeah, I plan to look into Dresden, Berlin, and Cologne in specific, they're good examples of the allied bombing.


    Or perhaps how it could escalate to that point where even (for the time) liberal democracies felt such a need to take the gloves off.
    It's possible if I have enough time, but I'm not planning on looking at it in a philisophical point of view. But thanks anyway, maybe if I have time.


    Thanks for all the advice guys, I'm planning on (nothing set on stone yet) writing my whole report on whether it was effective and whether it can be justified. It's going pretty in depth, and I plan to meet with a few former American B-24 pilots who I am lucky enough to have close by ask them some questions. I should be able to get information on specific allied objectives of the bombings from them (will ask questions carefully), because they were very experienced and flew a large amount of missions. While this is good, I won't be able to get the British point of view on the bombings, most people I know forget how big of a part they played.

    Anyhow, this should take a huge chunk of time and I'm looking forward to it.

  5. #645
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    well if might help with Montecassino, on wikipedia you can find all the necessary informations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

    I'd like to point your attention to the "Destruction of Abbey"

    by this time the Allies felt a lot of pressure to speed up military action, so they stopped to care very much about where and whom they bombed, but looked only at the final result (and in this case they also failed to achieve a good military result with the heavy bombing, as the Nazis were still able to fight and repel them for some time)

    hope it helps
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  6. #646

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Personally, I wouldn't waste too much time on individual tactical bombing incidents in WW2. Things like the bombing of Monte Cassino and Caen were essentially tactical decisions made at the front line by Generals based upon the enemy dispositions as well as the desire to save lives. If your assignment is about the overall strategic bombing campaign of WW2 it would be better to focus on the main strategy of bombing german industry, cities and civilian targets and whether that actually had any justification and effect. Likewise personally I'd avoid the Nuclear Bomb which was a one off decision rather than a long term policy. One could write an entire book on whether it was right to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, but it would be ignoring the previous four years of allied bombing and hardly touch upon the main moral issues. It also isolates the entire debate to the USA, who were not the main policy makers at the time.

  7. #647
    Manuel I Komnenos's Avatar Rex Regum
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Athenian Empire
    Posts
    11,553

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Can someone help me translate this sentence from medieval Greek to English (or modern Greek)? "Ἰδοὺ ὃν ἐδεδοίκειν, οὗτος χειραγωγούμενος ἱκέτης μου πρόσεισιν"
    I think it's something in the lines "There's the man (or he) whom I feared, he comes to me as a supported dotard". Supported in the sense that he can't walk by himself and he's helped by guards.
    Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
    "Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
    ~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917

  8. #648
    Euphoric's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    KALIFOЯNIA, AMEЯIKA
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    MIDDLE EAST HISTORY BUFFS, I NEED YOU!

    I'm needing some thesis ideas for prompts on an upcoming midterm. Just a few notes:

    1. Feel free to answer whichever questions you want in whatever order.
    2. Our professor wants us to tease a thesis statement from the prompt, so all I'm really looking for is an interesting thesis statement that has been synthesized from the prompt.
    3. Our professor has already stated that Question #7 is her favorite. I'll be focusing on that question primarily.
    4. I've included my own thoughts based on the notes in italics below each question, so feel free to critique/comment.
    5. Our professor also wants us to include a reference to primary source material for each prompt. So, for example, if I was talking about Ottoman reform, referencing the Tanzimat would suffice.

    Ok, so, here are the prompts:

    1. What were the details of the life of Mohammed that impacted Islam? Your answer should include but not be limited to the following points:

    a. What childhood experiences of the Prophet impacted principles of Islam?
    b. What was the Prophet’s experience of revelation and what personal and political battles did he fight in order to teach Islam?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Here, I think she's alluding to the fact that Islam was, in it's time, a movement for social and political change. In terms of the events that helped shape this reform, I believe she's referring to Mohammad's status as an orphan, his thoughts about poverty, and to his relationship to Khadija and therefore his thoughts about women. Women gained more rights than they had previously with the tribal system, Islam has a well integrated charity system for the impoverished, and orphans were to be taken care of. As for the personal and political battles that he fought in order to teach Islam, it's clear that Mohammad sought the unification of the tribes through a common religion (which he attempted to do with the ummah), and as a result he fought literal battles to make that happen. Moreover, his exile to Medina (622) and his subsequent conquest of Mecca (630) play into this as well.

    As for primary sources, All I can think of is the Qu'ran...


    2. What are the historical origins of the split between Sunni and Shiite Islam? Your answer should include but not be limited to the following points:
    a. Why did the split take place?
    b. Who were the key historical figures involved in the split?
    c. What were the political viewpoints of the people on each side of the split?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The schism between the sects of Islam originates with the Prophet's death, because he failed to provide a law for how the next spiritual leader of Islam was to be chosen. The fact that the Umayyads, who had been the dominate tribe who Mohammad had fought against in the conquest of Mecca, became the subsequent leaders of Islam after the Prophet's death was shocking to many of the ummah, and many more still thought that Ali should have been Mohammad's successor. However, Ali supported Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, so the status quo was maintained (although Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were all assassinated, presumably by supporters of Ali). Ali proved to be a rather divisive ruler once he was in power, however, and in the First Fitna, his actions created the Kharijites, another sect of Islam who felt that Ali wasn't a suitable Caliph. It was a Kharijite who ultimately ended Ali's life, as well. Because the Umayyads were opposed to Ali during the First Fitna, they had a policy of cursing Ali, and as a result the divide between the supporters of Ali and the Umayyads grew larger. Upon Ali's death, the Umayyads selected Muawiyah I as the caliph, and Ali's sons Hasan and Hussein conceded to his leadership. However, upon his death, Hussein and the followers of Ali claimed that Hussein should be made Caliph, and was subsequently killed by Muawiyah's son in the Battle of Yarmouk. The followers of Ali regarded Hussein's death as martyrdom, and the divide between the two sects has carried on ever since.

    Regarding the political viewpoints of the three groups: The Kharijites were radical, former Shiites thought Ali was unsuitable as a Caliph and wanted him removed, the Sunni (originally the supporters of Muawiyah I), fear allowing the direct lineage of Mohammad to rule for fear of the formation of nepotistic tendencies, and the Shiites, who are the followers of Ali, believe that only the descendants of the Prophet can rule.

    In terms of a thesis statement, it really seems that the gist of the sectarian disagreements within Islam have to do with political power dynamics: who should rule and why.

    For primary sources I am utterly clueless.


    3. What were the political and social circumstances that led to the founding of the Ottoman Empire?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This one is rather simple and I don't know how I am going to tease a thesis out of this prompt.

    Initially, the Seljuks migrated to the borders of the Abbasid Caliphate, and were eventually integrated as Muslims. Being a tribal society and more warlike, the Seljuks often fought battles on behalf of the Caliphate. But when the Abbasid Caliphate collapsed with the Mongol incursion, the Seljuk confederation was shattered. These individual Turkish tribes (Ghazi emirates) began competing, and out of this chaos Osman I began uniting the tribes to form the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the Eastern Roman Empire was, at this point, crippled both financially and militarily because of incursions in its northern borders. This power vacuum, this weakness from within and without, gave the Ottomans room to expand. By the 15th century they were carving up the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire.

    For sources, I do know of a historian (I can't recall his name) of the time who saw the interaction between the Abbasid Caliph and Kublai Khan, so there is that at least.


    4. What was the “Sick man of Europe” and why did European powers prop it up as opposed to dismantling it before World War I?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The "Sick Man of Europe" was a phrase coined by Tsar Nicolas I, describing the situation surrounding the crumbling Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century. After their apex in the early 16th century, the Ottomans began a slow and steady decline, which culminated with this term, and with the situation the Ottoman Empire faced prior to WWI. Their relationship with Europe in this period truly began in 1453 when their conquest of Constantinople initiated, to some extent, the Renaissance, and the Ottomans failed to benefit from its influence. Unfortunately for the Ottomans, they inherited the same problems that crippled the Eastern Roman Empire before it: nepotism, corruption, a politically strong and active clergy, ethnic disunity, unruly feudal lords, and a rebellious military.
    So, while Europe moved through the societal and technological gains that would culminate with European imperialism, the Ottoman Empire remained relatively socio-politically stagnant. It was at this point, at the height of their power, that the Ottomans began enacting a series of trade agreements with the European powers giving them relative autonomy in certain regions of the Ottoman Empire in order to conduct trade. It granted them legal and administrative rights, and granted the various ethnic and religious groups (such as the Maronites or the Jews) protection under their respective European patrons. The Ottoman Empire, being situated on the great trade routes to Asia, depended on trade and thus used these capitulations as ways to encourage the European states to trade. But the power of the Empire began to wane. The European states, wanting to circumvent the Ottoman trade hegemony using the technology that came out of the Renaissance, began to colonize far flung continents and find alternative trade routes around Africa. When this happened, the Ottoman economy began to decline, though their administrative costs continued to rise. The Ottomans could no longer keep up with the European powers, which began to show with their defeats in the Great Turkish War. This military and technological weakness began to become apparent with their failure to prevent rebel factions from reclaiming parts of their Empire (for example, the Greek War of Independence [1821] and the Second Serbian Uprising [1815]). But it was the Ottoman Empire's failure to industrialize (both militarily and economically) which truly highlighted their weakened state. Once their monopoly over Asian trade began to subside, the Ottoman Empire turned to local, specialized industries in order to buoy their economy. This created a strong, politically active artisan class which opposed the industrialization of the Empire, something they felt would threaten their way of life. Moreover, the devshirme, who were ex-Christian soldiers (Janissaries) and state officials that were raised by the state, played a large role in the forestalling of modernization. Economically, the devshirme made sure to undermine any official who would weaken their position via industrialization. Militarily, the Janissaries actively overthrew Sultans who sought to modernize or disband them. All of these elements ensured that the Ottomans had failed to keep up militarily, economically, and technologically with the European powers.

    But the European powers realized that the conquest of the Ottoman Empire would have two results: firstly, it would upset the Metternichian balance of power that had kept Europe relatively stable for decades, and secondly, the Europeans realized that the Ottoman bureaucracy was specifically designed to deal with the tribal, religious, and ethnic tensions that plagued the region. So why conquer something militarily when you can conquer something financially? The previous capitulations were used as economic wedges by which the Europeans could begin to dominate the Ottoman economy without having to conquer it. The Ottoman rulers, meanwhile, began desperately trying to modernize. They attempted European-style political reforms (Tanzimat), attempted to educate the political elite at European schools, and attempted to industrialize. Unfortunately, this cost the Empire even more capital, capital that had been damaged by their loss of trade, by their multi-front wars and rebellions, and by their domination by the European powers. The Empire began borrowing money from the European powers to support their development, which resulted in massive debt, eventually culminating with the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (1881), a European commission which began to run the Ottoman economy for them in an attempt to pay back their debt. By this point in history, the Ottomans were more than a "Sick Man of Europe," they were the "Dying Man of Europe." The glory of the Empire was long since over.

    I suppose I could source the Tanzimat, or perhaps Al-Afghani on the perils of Western Imperialism and the need for unification.


    5. How was the Middle East involved in the following events in European history?
    a. The Renaissance
    b. The Age of Imperialism
    c. World War I
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I believe that I answered this question for the most part in prompt 4. I would really only have to clarify why it was that the conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire ushered in the Renaissance with a passage along the lines of this:

    The Renaissance was unwittingly triggered by the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 after a diaspora of well-educated Byzantines fled to Europe with texts and knowledge from both the Classical Era and the Golden Age of Islam.

    If anyone thinks that there is more to this question, or if you have comments/criticism, let me know!


    6. What were the historical circumstances that contributed to the decline and ultimate end of the Ottoman Empire?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Again, I believe I answered this in prompt 4...


    7. Describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and Europe during the period surrounding each of the following dates? (Extra hint for success: Do not forget to provide historical transitions between each date and the reason why each date is important within the historical context of the period).
    a. 1453
    b. 1881
    c. 1920
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Once more, the majority of this was answered in prompt 4. I would have to clarify a few points about the devshirme, the Young Ottomans, the CUP, and the Young Turks:
    The Sultanate quickly realized that it needed to modernize its military, but the Janissary Corps would execute Sultans who attempted to do so. Finally, under the rule of Mahmud II, after an attempt to modernize the military by bringing in European officers and mercenaries, The Janissaries rebelled, as per usual (1826). Mahmud II was able to disband the Corps which paved the way for the subsequent Tanzimat reforms (1839). The Tanzimat attempted to disband the millet system, whereby it would gain legal and economic control over all of its citizens and to promote unity among its various ethnicities under Pan-Ottomanism. It also sought to reform the military, legal, economic systems, and, most importantly, the educational system. The Tanzimat reforms encouraged the Ottoman elite to receive an education in Europe in order to bring further modernization to the Empire. However, many of the individuals sent abroad saw Constitutionalism first hand and wanted to bring the concept back with them to the Ottoman Empire. This culminated with the Young Ottomans (1865), who eventually succeeded in establishing a constitutional monarchy in 1876. The Constitution only lasted for 2 years, when Sultan Abdulhamid II reestablished his authority as an absolute monarch. The Young Ottomans had made their mark, however, and would eventually become embodied by the nationalistic, Pan-Turkic Young Turk movement (1902), which gathered the various nationalistic groups under the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Various disasters continued to cripple the Empire, and in 1908 the Young Turks were able to renew the constitutional monarchy under the leadership of the Triumvirate, Enver, Djemal, and Talaat Pasha.

    If the Crimean War (1853) hadn't shown the Young Turks that the Ottoman Empire was becoming a puppet state, then the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (1881) certainly did. It became apparent that if the Empire was to rid itself of its debt, it would need to ally itself against its creditors: Britain and France. Luckily, a situation in which they could arose in 1914 with the outset of the First World War. The Prussians, who were already on friendly terms with the Ottomans due to an exclusive contract to build a railway throughout the Empire, seemed to be an easy way to renege on their debts to England and France. They expected the war to be over quickly, and didn't expect to have much of an active role. He turned out to be very wrong, and the war put to much economic and military strain on the already fragile Empire. By 1918, the French, British, and Italian forces were occupying Istanbul, and with the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.

    But what is the thesis here?


    8. Describe the political career of Ataturk. Your answer should include, but not be limited to the answers to the following questions:

    a. What were the political and social events that created the class from which Mustafa Kemal built his early political career?
    b. What were Ataturk’s beliefs about religion and European style reform?
    c. What were his six arrows and how did they impact reform in Turkey?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Part A. I already answered in prompt 7. With regards to B and C:

    THESIS: The failures of multi-national Ottomanism and the results of non-secular government that he observed early in his career ensured that Ataturk would attempt to establish a secular, nationalistic Turkey. Moreover, his education in Europe that he received as a result of the Tanzimat ensured that he would attempt to instill as many liberal values into his citizens and his government as possible under the framework of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

    After the humiliating Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the situation was looking rather grim for the Turkish people. The Triple Entente and its allies were planning to physically, rather than economically, divide the remnants of the Ottoman Empire among themselves. Even lands that had been occupied by the Turkish people for hundreds of years were going to be divided. It was likely that Armenia and Kurdistan would gain independence, Italy or Greece would receive Ionia, the French would receive the the Greater Levant, the Arabs would gain independence (and would eventually govern Iraq), England would get the key territories protecting its trade lines to India, and Turkey would get what was left: a small scap of land in the middle of Asia Minor - even Istanbul would become a demilitarized, international zone of control. Meanwhile, Mustafa Kemal, also known as Ataturk, a former Young Turk commander and hero of the Great War (and thus escaped the War with an unscathed reputation), was seen as a stabilizing figure,so was asked by the leaders of the Entente to remain in Istanbul to keep the peace. When Ataturk realized exactly how the former Ottoman territory was to be divided, he began organizing a resistance movement in 1919 which culminated in the Turkish War of Independence. Ataturk found an ally in the Bolsheviks, who saw Turkey as a bulwark and an eventual outpost of Communism. With Bolshevik support and with the establishment of a regular army, Ataturk launched a successful military offensive against the Allies. With the Entente financially spent by the Great War, and with the agreement of the Bolsheviks, the Allies sued for peace, and Ataturk formed the Grand National Assembly in Ankara, whose task was to create an independent Turkish republic and deliberate over the details of the Treaty of Sevres. By 1923, the Grand National Assembly signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which reformed the borders of the Treaty of Sevres to favor Turkey, and the Republic of Turkey was formed, with Ataturk at the head.

    Ataturk recognized that Pan-Islamic rule would put the Turkey at odds with liberalism and secular nationalism. He wanted to bring the fledgling nation closer to Europe, doing anything he could to westernize the region, including an alphabetical reform that latinized the Turkish script. Key to the efforts of Kemalism, or Ataturk's vision for Turkey, were six main points called the 'Six Arrows:' Republicanism, Populism, Nationalism, Secularism, Etatism, and Reformism. The tenet of Republicanism established a constitutional republic in Turkey, with a three branch form of government with checks and balances. Ataturk chose Republicanism as one of his core values because he wanted to instill the notions of popular sovereignty and constitutionalism among the Turkish people. The Turkish concept of Populism signaled a transition of power to the citizenry, ensured political equality (women included), and ensured the absolute disintegration of the millet system. Nationalism is a rather self-explanatory concept, as Ataturk wanted to create a national identity for the Turkish people that was distinct from the Islamic identity of other Middle Eastern governments, which was demonstrated most profoundly by the alphabetic reform of the Turkish language. Secularism is again self-explanatory and embodied the divide between Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism. The concept of Turkish Etatism embodied Ataturk's desire for a unitary (centralized) government. And Reformism essentially characterized Ataturk's realization that the Republic of Turkey needed to modernize rapidly.

    As for the sources, I'm again unsure. Maybe the Treaty of Lausanne itself?



    So, what do you all think? Again, thanks to anyone who takes the time to read and/or respond to any of this.
    Last edited by Euphoric; March 10, 2014 at 03:05 AM.

  9. #649
    necronox's Avatar ▬▬ι═══════- -═══════ιι▬
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manuel I Komnenos View Post
    Can someone help me translate this sentence from medieval Greek to English (or modern Greek)? "Ἰδοὺ ὃν ἐδεδοίκειν, οὗτος χειραγωγούμενος ἱκέτης μου πρόσεισιν"
    I think it's something in the lines "There's the man (or he) whom I feared, he comes to me as a supported dotard". Supported in the sense that he can't walk by himself and he's helped by guards.
    does; " here is my manipulated supplicant who comes" make sense?

    on a different topic, what could force a general/commander/(or equivalent) to willingly fight in battle in middle-winter given that they had the technologies and fielded more or less the same type of armies as the French or English in the hundred years war c. 1400?
    Last edited by necronox; March 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM. Reason: typo - supplican -> supplicant


  10. #650
    CK23's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,821

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    I'm currently writing my senior thesis and my thesis is "What did the early defeats and pitfalls of the Roman Empire have on it's collapse?" Essentially what I am looking for is information regarding events during the early portion of the Empire such as the foundation of the Empire, significant battles (such as Teutoburg Forest) and significant events (such as Sejanus becoming an overly ambitious Praetorian Prefect) in the early portion of the Empire, in this instance anything really to the 3rd century, which would later influence it in its collapse. I am asking for reading material, primary sources and secondary sources that you believe might help in this.

    Currently I am using the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and some others as my primary sources while I've picked up Legions of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins (I'm sure to catch flak for this one), Rubicon by Tom Holland and The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome by Chris Scarre. I also have The Fall of the Roman Empire - A History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heath, How Rome Fell by Adrians Goldsworthy, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, Rome and her Enemies by Osprey and The Roman Army by Osprey as well alongside Legionary by Philip Matyszak. These are the secondary sources that I will be using and any more that are great for this time period please let me know.

    Any suggestions or links to places with factual histories would be amazing!
    Rabble rousing, Pleb Commander CK23

  11. #651
    G-Megas-Doux's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,607

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by CK23 View Post
    I'm currently writing my senior thesis and my thesis is "What did the early defeats and pitfalls of the Roman Empire have on it's collapse?" Essentially what I am looking for is information regarding events during the early portion of the Empire such as the foundation of the Empire, significant battles (such as Teutoburg Forest) and significant events (such as Sejanus becoming an overly ambitious Praetorian Prefect) in the early portion of the Empire, in this instance anything really to the 3rd century, which would later influence it in its collapse. I am asking for reading material, primary sources and secondary sources that you believe might help in this.

    Currently I am using the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and some others as my primary sources while I've picked up Legions of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins (I'm sure to catch flak for this one), Rubicon by Tom Holland and The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome by Chris Scarre. I also have The Fall of the Roman Empire - A History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heath, How Rome Fell by Adrians Goldsworthy, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, Rome and her Enemies by Osprey and The Roman Army by Osprey as well alongside Legionary by Philip Matyszak. These are the secondary sources that I will be using and any more that are great for this time period please let me know.

    Any suggestions or links to places with factual histories would be amazing!
    You have a good amount of books there I've read Rubicon which seams to be more of a well crafted story then a historical source the writer was a civil servant for the British Foreign office, I recommend that you use the books like this and Decline of the Roman Empire not as sources but as indices of references and then read the actual source material for yourself. You can find sourcebooks online that have been translated and posted if you want to find interesting sources you can initially scout them online then attempt to find a published hard copy to authenticate the accuracy before committing to anything. Beyond that searching your library for things like the 12 Caesars. Looking at Vegetius. Find the Nostra Dignitum (you can get that online). Adrian Goldsworthy did a good book on the history of the Roman Army.

    Jumping off points from a quick search. Judgements left to yourself.
    http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/d/159.html

    https://archive.org/details/sourcebookofanci01bots

    http://www.besthistorysites.net/inde...l-history/rome

    Also don't neglect the Roman Economy as that is something that we do know about from the finds in coins and the reforms throughout history.

    http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm

    economic reform shows a direct correlation to the burdens of the state for financing and maintaining government and military as well as the availability of raw mineral wealth.
    Last edited by G-Megas-Doux; April 20, 2014 at 10:42 PM.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Was looking for a Morrowind sig to use as big fan of the game found this from here so crediting from source http://paha13.deviantart.com/art/Morrowind-259489058

    Also credit avatar from.
    http://www.members.shaw.ca/nickyart2/Avatars/Page2.htm

  12. #652

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    What was the British flag during the thirsty years war? rep will be given

  13. #653
    Mausolos of Caria's Avatar Royal Satrap
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    County of Ravensberg
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene of Savoy View Post
    What was the British flag during the thirsty years war? rep will be given
    The Union Jack It was introduced in 1606 after the Scottish King James VI. had also become James I. of England. That is, the old Union Jack, without an Irish cross:





    During the 1640s, the Scottish Covenanters developed this flag:



    While the Union Jack was abandoned in 1649 and replaced by a Commonwealth Flag, preferrably this:



    And after the final reunion with Scotland, this one was used as well:



    Cromwell's Protectorate (1653-1659) then deployed this new flag:



    And this one was Cromwell's personal standard as Lord Protector, in 1658 it was also adopted as the Standard for the General of his Highnesse fleet:

    Last edited by Mausolos of Caria; May 20, 2014 at 01:42 PM.
    "Pompeius, after having finished the war against Mithridates, when he went to call at the house of Poseidonios, the famous teacher of philosophy, forbade the lictor to knock at the door, as was the usual custom, and he, to whom both the eastern and the western world had yielded submission, ordered the fasces to be lowered before the door of science."

    Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 7, 112

  14. #654

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Thanks a bunch Mausolous! I'm pretty surprised it was the union jack, almost four hundred years and the same flag, wow.

    and + rep as promised

    Another thing, does anyone know of any unique or elite Danish units during the 30 years war? I'm looking gin to Denmark quite a bit, and am currently doing a analysis on their military.
    Last edited by Eugene of Savoy; May 20, 2014 at 08:46 PM.

  15. #655
    Mausolos of Caria's Avatar Royal Satrap
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    County of Ravensberg
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Well, the original idea was to represent the union of the crowns, and that already happened in 1603

    As for Denmark, I can't answer this, but have a look for this mod or ask these guys if no one here knows- and if you are interested in the Thirty Year's War it will interest you anyway:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...y-Years-of-War
    "Pompeius, after having finished the war against Mithridates, when he went to call at the house of Poseidonios, the famous teacher of philosophy, forbade the lictor to knock at the door, as was the usual custom, and he, to whom both the eastern and the western world had yielded submission, ordered the fasces to be lowered before the door of science."

    Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 7, 112

  16. #656
    Facupay's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    1,119

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Not actually homework but rather for my own pleasure I'm looking for a book on Legal History that should start on very ancient times like Egypt or the Code of Hammurabi and then cover very broadly most cultures and advancements in law until recent times. Preferably with not much western focus but I know half the book will be Greek and Roman law so it's ok as long as other ancient cultures at least have a few chapters for them.

    I've been looking on my uni library and can only find books on Roman or Spanish law but nothing as broad and universal as I want.

    Any help will be appreciated.
    HUMAN IS FISH ISLAM IS WATER. COME TO WATER AND BE RELAX...


  17. #657
    Mausolos of Caria's Avatar Royal Satrap
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    County of Ravensberg
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Well I know such a book, but there are two problems with it...

    1. I can't remember the title right now, but I could lool it up.

    2. It's in German
    "Pompeius, after having finished the war against Mithridates, when he went to call at the house of Poseidonios, the famous teacher of philosophy, forbade the lictor to knock at the door, as was the usual custom, and he, to whom both the eastern and the western world had yielded submission, ordered the fasces to be lowered before the door of science."

    Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 7, 112

  18. #658
    Facupay's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    1,119

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mausolos of Caria View Post
    2. It's in German
    I'm an untermensch and have no german knowledge so it would be pointless.

    Thanks anyway.
    HUMAN IS FISH ISLAM IS WATER. COME TO WATER AND BE RELAX...


  19. #659

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    Quote Originally Posted by Facupay View Post
    Not actually homework but rather for my own pleasure... but nothing as broad and universal as I want.
    Any help will be appreciated.
    As you stated, most books are about Rome and Greece, there are not not many for all the other rich culures, sadly. But I do have a few suggestions for you, if you are interested:
    1The History of Ancient World from earliest accounts to the fall of Roman Empire, by Susan Bauer. I haven't read it yet, but I heard very positive things and it has most of (if not all)the civilizations of the time and certainly those you are most interested in.
    2) Egypt, Greece and Rome, by Charles Freeman and O. Murray. I have read that one, it's quite good, but it features only those three titular civilizations in detail.
    3) Also, there are some books by Oxford, which are very good, Ian Shaw was the editor/author in some of them, but they mostly focus on Egypt.
    4) There is, however, one book I have heard of, "Messopotamia: Discovering the first city", by G. Leick. I heard it's good.

    Finally, I will direct you to Goodreads, in here: https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show...history?page=1
    They have tons of lists about all subjects and close to all published books and you are ound to find sth you are interested in. This list has some 100 pages, so...

  20. #660
    Librarian's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Please get me out of this hellhole of the UK
    Posts
    923

    Default Re: Need Help with History Homework?

    I'd like some help with this homework, it's kind of an opinion based essay but I need some sources. Basically, my teacher has mentioned that an extra skill he seems to be looking out for, looking at the source origin and mentioning the reliability of it. I have quite a bit of sources from my lessons and stuff. Since this is one of the things that looks to see if the source is biased, all the the things on the 'against side' have their sources biased and thus goes on the 'for side'.

    This seems to be a controversial subject, the title is " "Douglas Haig deserves the title of 'Butcher of the Somme'" Do you agree?"
    Or in other words "Does Douglas Haig deserve the title of the 'Butcher of the Somme'"
    The "For side" is that he does deserve the title. The against side is that he does not deserve it.

    FYI if someone doesn't recognise what I am talking about, this is about the Battle of the Somme, World War 1 about Haig, the british commander.
    Last edited by Librarian; January 01, 2015 at 08:51 AM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •