Wow..sounds pretty interesting. Thank you for your help. I will definetely look into it..i wanted to do a personality if i couldnt focus on anything controversial and i didn't want anyone too common like JFK. Thank youwaterfowl said:There was a documentary on ABC last night about Marie Antoinette, and it was saying how she really wasn't as bad a person as history/people remember her. The main reason she is remembered as a bad person is because the French hated her - they all thought she was a dirty Austrian spy, they really hated her, it's kind of sad the poor girl.
Anyway just thought I'd add that in, in case you wanted to concentrate on a personality.
"Marie Antoinette - Eveil bitch, or just misunderstood?"
oh yes..how can i forget you. you like history and you study it at uni..!?! thank youshelley said:yep sure umm grab me on msn sometime and ill send over some abbreviated notes on what the topic is, where u should look and ill scan sme of teh shorter not commercially easily avalible stuff for u if u like....if got the dabate in short hand cos it was a core part of my course...haha hopefully u remeber who i am on msn...the uni girl who asked u about teh dot pionts of modern syllabus!
LoL. I'll keep it in mind!fakingtheday said:Research the topic of Bitches who broke up bands. EG Yoko Ono, Courtney Love
Really? I found that the people who do Ancient do ancient topics and the other way around, because they are interested in those time periods (hence why they chose that particular history).Gwenavere14 said:I'm looking at Medieval history and I'm also doing Ancient and Modern history... what I find is that people who do modern history genrally end up doing something in Ancient History and vise versa for Ancient People. As for those doing both they usually end up in the middle.
You never know, your theory might be correct in certain circumstances.Gwenavere14 said:Really? well that blows my theory!
hehe, I have my doubts about the topic i'm looking at being credible too. It's just interesting, so i'm going to research it a bit and see what I come up with. If I come to the same conclusion as you, then i'll probably, i dunno, just go along with it anyway, but yeah, you're probably right.Techie said:Roosevelt was not a communist It was Washington's fault, not Hawaii, but there is a lot more evidence that it was simply an operational failure than a conspiracy. If you're going to do that topic, I'd strongly suggest you ensure you use reputable historiographical sources, rather than conspiracy theorists (eg. Mark Willey) who are generally less reliable.
Gwenavere14 said:I'm looking at Medieval history and I'm also doing Ancient and Modern history... what I find is that people who do modern history genrally end up doing something in Ancient History and vise versa for Ancient People. As for those doing both they usually end up in the middle.
I suggest that mabey you look at something opposite from the course you doing and start there because that way its a totally different ground of research that would hopefully be interesting
Really? well that blows my theory! [\QUOTE]
i do ancient....is late 17th century ancient history?
Ancient History generally finishes in 476 AD, the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Modern History doesn't begin until the late 18th century though (the French / American / Industrial Revolutions), so lesmiester_dj's stuck in the middle.Gwenavere14 said:Your not serious????? Ancient History is Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, basically everything ANCIENT!!!!
The sources I used were:Korobushka said:hehe, I have my doubts about the topic i'm looking at being credible too. It's just interesting, so i'm going to research it a bit and see what I come up with. If I come to the same conclusion as you, then i'll probably, i dunno, just go along with it anyway, but yeah, you're probably right.
Might I ask as to these reputable histiographical sources you talk of? Where can I find some and compare for myself?
Maybe you could say why the governments of the time thought it was necessary, and maybe research to see if it had any benefits.sabrina123 said:i want to do something on the berlin wall but am not sure on what aspect of it exactly...any ideas??
Techie said:Ancient History generally finishes in 476 AD, the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Modern History doesn't begin until the late 18th century though (the French / American / Industrial Revolutions), so lesmiester_dj's stuck in the middle.
The sources I used were:
US Investigations:
- Report of the Army Pearl Harbor Board (Grunert, 1944, US Army)
- Report of the Hewitt Inquiry (Hewittt, 1945, US Navy)
- Report of the Joint Congressional Comittee on Pearl Harbor (Barkely, 1946, US Senate)
- Report of Naval Court of Inquiry (Murfin, 1944, US Navy)
- Report of the Roberts Commission (Roberts, 1942, US Senate)
You can find the full text of these investigations at Ibiblio. It will take a fair bit of effort to get through them though, you'll really need to narrow down your topic first, because there is just too much to read otherwise.
Secondary scholars:
- Costello, J. (1994), Days of Infamy, Pocket Books
- Prange, G. et al (1986), Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, McGraw-Hill
- Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor, Summit
- Slackman, M. (1990), Target - Pearl Harbor, University of Hawaii Press
- Stinnett, R. (2001), Day of Deceit, Touchstone
- Toland, J. (1982), Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, Methuen
- Willey, M. (2000), Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies, Xlibris
Of these seconday sources, I found Costello, Prange and Stinnett the most useful and reliable. If you want to read it, my essay (full marks) is on my website
here.