Decision Points by George W. Bush and A Journey by Tony Blair. Are political diaries and memoirs useful contributors to the historical record
Are political diaries and memoirs useful contributors to the historical record? The use of a diary or memoir and its usefulness in contributing to the historiography of an event is a topic that is much debated by historians as whilst they do provide one with the motives behind the decision taken by a politician there are many unforeseen problems that a historian must comprehend before a true understanding can be gleaned. These problems can include bias and also the stance taken by an author who is most likely to have been a key influence on the event. This is especially true if the author was a former leader. If for example the decision that they took was criticised then it is likely that the stance the author adopts would be defensive thus jeopardising the truthfulness of the event as the author portrays them. Likewise, this would also be the case if the decision taken by a politician proved to be popular as it has the potential for the author to expand on the truth so that they seem to be an even bigger influence than they actually were. With this in mind, a project has been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of political diaries or memoirs in its contribution to the historical record with an analysis made of two more recent memoirs - "Decision Points" by George W. Bush and "A Journey" by Tony Blair - so that an understanding can be provided for the decision to
To what extent did the Roman annexation of (and influence over) Greece affect Domestic arrangement and approaches towards the stranger?
To what extent did the Roman annexation of (and influence over) Greece affect Domestic arrangement and approaches towards the stranger? Content: Page 1: Title Page Page 2: Contents Page Page 3: Introduction Page 4: Main Body Page 15: Conclusion Page 16: Bibliography - Ancient Authors Page 17: Bibliography - Modern Authors Page 20: List of Illustrations Introduction: Excavations focused upon Greek housing has mainly been dedicated towards the oikos of the Prehistorical, Classical and Hellenistic eras and the subsequent interpretation of spatial segregation and architecture within. However, many Scholars readily admit that there has been far too little analysis of Greek housing during the period of Roman rule from the late Republican era of the middle to late second century BC and onwards into Imperial rule; the impression that is given is that it had turned into a 'cultured backwater' (McKay 1975: 211). The aim in this project is to see how much Roman rule influenced the development of Greek housing in the Aegean. I shall do this by analysing the Roman domus and domestic setting before comparing it with its Greek counterpart and then attempt to make light of the changes the oikos underwent. Main Body: Much of the evidence we have for Roman housing comes from the ancient literary sources. Pliny's (the younger) letters contain a wealth of information about housing in
Peloponnesian Politics: What can the events between the First Macedonian War and the Achaean War tell us about inconsistencies in Roman foreign policy in the Peloponnese and Peloponnesian reactions to it.
Peloponnesian Politics: What can the events between the First Macedonian War and the Achaean War tell us about inconsistencies in Roman foreign policy in the Peloponnese and Peloponnesian reactions to it. Introduction: The Roman world ventured into the Greek world in 229 BC during the First Illyrian War to stop Illyrian pirates sabotaging trading routes across the Adriatic, which led the Republic to establish a protectorate over Greek cities in southern Illyria and Epirus. Roughly eighty years and four Macedonian wars later, the Romans had established hegemony within Greece proper. From such humble beginnings, with a desire to protect Greek autonomy, the situation had turned itself on its head when L. Mummius Achaecus sacked the city of Corinth, defeating the Achaean League in the eponymous war of 146 BC. Over the course of those eighty or so years, the Roman Senate and its legates in the field embarked upon many diplomatic embassies within the Peloponnese, arbitrating between many disputes that arose from there, involving powers like Sparta as well as the Achaean League. I should like to explore Rome's aims behind its diplomatic interventions in the Peloponnese between the Achaean League and the rest of the Peloponnese, the aims of the Achaean League and the other Peloponnesian polities' response to Roman and analyse discrepancies in Polybius' account of the events. Rome's
England Under Henry VIII
England Under Henry VIII Henry VIII Tudor (1491-1547) was the second son of Henry VII. His brother Arthur, being only 15, married to Catherine, the daugter of the Spanish monarch. But in a very few month he sickened and died. Henty VII arranged that the young widow should marry his second son Henry, then 12 years of age, when he too should be 15. A few years after settling this marriage, in 1509, the King died of the gout. King Henry the Eighth was just eighteen years of age when he came to the throne. People said he was a hand some boy, but in later life he did not seem handsome at all. He was a big, burly, noisy, small-eyed, large-faced, double-chinned fellow, as we know from the portraits of him, painted by the famous Hans Holbein*. The king was anxious to make himself popular, and the people, who had long dis- liked the late king, believed to believe that he deserved to be so. He was extremely fond of show and display, and so were they. There-fore there was great rejoicing when he married the Princess Catherine, and when they were both crowned. And the King fought at tournaments and always came off victorious - for the courtiers took care of that - and there was a general outcry that he was a wonderful man. The prime favourites of the late King, who were engaged in money-raising matters, Empson, Dudley, and their supporters, were accused of a variety of crimes they
87777777
3th June -HelterSkelter -Arrowhead -Mitch -GreenTeaLatte -Jayla -Levante -`Dane -Evan_Varvell (need checking) demonic_fury Amorphis TrinityStar TigerWilly
To what extent were ethnic tensions the primary cause of the Rwandan genocide?
To what extent were ethnic tensions the primary cause of the Rwandan genocide? This essay will explore the history of relations between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda in order to determine whether or not ethnic rivalries were the primary cause of the 1994 genocide. The impact of colonialism and racism will be investigated along with the importance of French interests in the country following independence. It will be shown how financial interests had a profound influence on events as did the rousing of ethnic tensions for political pragmatism by both the Belgian colonizers and their Rwandan successors. Propaganda also played a prominent role in which the Tutsis were dehumanized and the Hutus were radicalized in order for them to carry out the genocide. This paper will conclude that as Habyarimana's regime and the interests of his foreign supporters was threatened by the power-sharing agreement contained in the Arusha Peace Accords; genocide was instigated in order to remove the opposition posed. First of all, a brief outline of the genocide itself will be given. The genocide began within hours of the presidential assassination of Presidents Habyarimana of Rwanda and Ntaryamira of Burundi. Their plane was shot down with a surface-to-air missile on 6 April 1994 as they were returning from an international meeting in Dar-es-Salaam at which Habyarimana "had finally agreed
Expressions of German Nationalism 1815-1847
Expressions of German Nationalism 1815-1847 1815 was the year of the Congress of Vienna and the formation of the Confederation of German States. These conferences followed the ceasing of hostilities against France and a re-construction of European power relations as they were before the Thermidorian influence of the French revolution extended outside its natural borders through French occupation of much of Europe. The cause was liberalism and constitutional government but was eventually to become an expression of the megalomaniac tendencies of the French leader. The experience of the German people under French occupation had been mixed but the wars of liberation provided an opportunity for a sense of unity to develop amongst the German speaking peoples. The German Confederation arising from the Congress of Vienna consisted of 39 states and 4 free cities. The Hapsburg Empire and the Prussian Kingdom were the leading influences in this new structure that was essentially a revised version of the Holy Roman Empire. The period between 1815 and 1847 is traditionally known as 'The Restoration' as the policies of the German confederation during this period revolved around the restoration of absolute rule by monarchs. The statesman Metternich represented the Austrian-Hapsburg Empire in the Confederation and it was under his direction that policies were developed and
Alexander the Great and His Army.
Alexander the Great and His Army Alexander the Great and His Army by Gerald L. Conroy PEACE. More is written about peace than any other word in our language. There isn't another word in today's world that represents so much to so very many. It is not just wanted or desired, it is prayed for as few, if any, other things are. Peace, here on the threshold of the 21st century, the beginning of the Third Millennium, is almost a religion in itself. We wage war to gain peace. This does not, to us, detract from victory in any way for that is the successful culmination of war. We think past victory to peace. This is what we fought for - peace! Now we will change our conditioning about peace as the supreme objective of war as we consider, 2300 years in the past, the wars of Alexander the Great. The reason for this change is that Alexander had an entirely different objective for waging war. Alexander dedicated himself to glory, glory gained on the field of battle. Because he was King of Macedon, an absolute monarch, the entire country was his instrument to glory, Alexander and Macedon were one. Implicit in this dedication to glory is the necessity that war is a constant, there is always a present war. The absence of war eliminates the potential for gaining glory. Unless we consider the wars of Alexander in this way, we miss his raison' d'etre.1 Alexander was surly one of
Which battle can we consider to have been the most important turning point in the Greco-Persian wars?
Which battle can we consider to have been the most important turning point in the Greco-Persian wars? The Greco-Persian wars of 498 BC to 448 BC were a clash between two completely contrasting cultures. The Achaemenid Persian Empire stretched from the subdued Ionian Greek city states on the shore of Asia Minor to the Indus River bordering India and was ruled zealously by God-Kings in Persepolis, the capital of the Empire. On the contrary, the land we now know as Greece was a collection of small, aggressive city states that managed to put aside their many differences, and, against the overwhelming odds stacked against them, turned back the might of the Persian army from within their own territories. The Hellenic city - states that fought against the Persian Empire certainly defied the odds, but when and how did the tide change? Most Historians agree on a number of battles between 490 and 479 BC, but opinion is still somewhat divided as to which battle provided the exact turning point from the initial dominance of Persia to the Hellenic city states gaining the upper hand. In this essay, I will investigate the four key battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea and will attempt to explain their significance within the war1. The battle of Marathon took place in the late summer of 490 BC, during the first Invasion of Greece, organised by King Darius I. When Persian
Was the industrial Revolution a good thing?
Was the industrial Revolution a good thing? The Industrial Revolution was a series of many changes that took place in Great Britain from 1750 to 1900. There is much controversy as to whether the changes were for better or for worse and to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or a bad thing. Some people say that it improved peoples' lives, and that technology and entertainment got better. They say that Britain was made a great, rich and powerful country. Others disagree and say that it was a bad thing and that during the Industrial Revolution there were terrible working and living conditions and many people suffered because of the changes that took place. They also say that it caused a lot of pollution and that it changed many people's lifestyles for the worse. In this essay I will investigate the bad and then the good things that happened to people's lives in Britain between 1750 and 1900 and then make up my own mind as to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or not. In the early 1700's a lot of people worked on the land. Nearly all of the people that didn't work on the farms worked in their homes, spinning or weaving. Most families spun and wove in the same room as they did all of their domestic chores. This room was usually quite full, with the children, adults and even the elderly all helping to produce wool and cloth. This was a good idea,
