I ask because I recently watched the HBO series Rome and Augustus is depicted as a sado-masochist and borderline-psycopath, while young Octavian is narcissistic. Currently reading through I, Claudius and he seems like a caring fatherly figure for his extended family, a little bit naive and probably nothing like Julius Caesar (no delusions of grandeur). Do we know if any of these depictions are accurate.

It always seemed so arbitrary to me.

[deleted]

I recently watch the movie red cliff and the plot regarding the war seems to be real as well the weapons and warfare tactics

[deleted]

Hello and welcome to a special edition of Monday Methods. Today we are kicking off a multi-week project focused on how to find and apply sources in an essay or other written academic work.

Several of our flaired users have volunteered to contribute "how to" guides as part of this project. Today, /u/TenMinuteHistory will go over what a Primary, Secondary or Tertiary source is, and how they should be used. /u/Caffarelli will tackle two subjects. 1) accessing sources when you don't have university access. 2) how you can help a Reference Librarian best help you.

If you have questions on these topics, please ask them. The goal of this project is to demystify the process.

Next week, we will cover how to use Secondary sources after you have found them.

It got off to a good start with the cathedral schools and the University of Paris, but lost its co-monopoly over the later Middle Ages. What happened between then and (let's say) 1910 to cement it as the city of intellect and romance even today?

[deleted]

Hi everyone. My hometown of Huron, Ohio has a pretty historical lighthouse (for our area anyway). It was originally financed with an appropriation from Congress a long time ago. I found out that it was rebuilt in its current form i, the 1930's. Being that this was during the New Deal, I wanted to find out if it was financed by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or some other New Deal program. I contacted the Huron Historical Society but got no response.

Where can I go to find out this sort of information?

Thanks!

It seems like he is a little to admired even though he lost his campaign against a inferior force.

As in, how useful was it at taking out enemy soldiers in the 19th century compared to the 17th, 18th and 20th? Did it have a mostly morale effect or was it an actually devastating weapon?

From what I understand, the advent of the quick-firing system was what lead to a massive increase in deadliness, but I also understand that even during the Napoleonic Wars, artillery was quite deadly. I'm guessing it was the development of various types of ammunition that started the evolution of the artillery, with the quick-firing system being the latest and most deadly improvement, so was the combination of ammo and guns the Napoleonic Wars deadly or not?

Looking at the acts of terrorism in France this weekend, it seems the conflict in Syria is reaching across the globe - The US, France, and Russia are heavily involved. How many countries does it take to be an official "World War," and will we call it that immediately, or only when we look back at it in 10-15 years?

I'm looking at this in Turkey and was wondering how it compares. In Turkey, democracy starts really in 1950. The countryside was very roughly divided between the CHP and DP/AP. These affiliations were mainly based on local identities. Since the CHP had been in charge as single party since 1923, in rural areas the leading family was CHP. Once multi-party politics come around in 1945, the second most important in the region become the core of the DP (which became the AP after the 1960 Coup). In rural areas, other people then seem to vote based on their allegiance to these two families (see the work of Leder, Meeker, and Stirling, among others). When these people came to the cities in the 1950's to early 70's, Kemal Karpat found that they disproprionately ended up supporting the DP/AP who was in power at the time, largely through patronage politics. In the 1970's, the CHP took a hard turn to the left and ended up winning the major cities for the first time in decades, in large part by winning over these recent migrants while keeping their old secularist, western educated center. The CHP's new "left of center" ideology wasn't the only ideology that became important--by the 1980 Coup, over 4,000 people had been murdered in political attacks between leftists, nationalists, and Islamists. The core of the post-1980 coups were not peripheral elites, but the urban poor (mainly recent migrants). White and Tugal among others have written extensively on this. Winning this constituency almost completely and gradually winning over rural voters as while keeping peripheral businessmen eventually allowed them to win almost every political institution in the country by the 2000's.

I'm wonder what the patterns are for other countries, if they're comparable. How were rural migrants brought into urban political systems?

[deleted]

I read the The Economy of Cities when I was younger and I loved it. Especially her discussions about how the first settlements could have formed. How are her views regarded now?

After the Western Empire's dissolution, what were the cities of Italy like? How had they changed from the cities of the later Empire (say, late 4th century)?