Charles River

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of ancient accounts*Includes a bibliography for further readingDespite all the accomplishments and widespread victories and conquests throughout the long history of Republican and Imperial Rome, general perception still deems the Romans to have failed in one crucial conquest: the subjugation of Germany. Indeed, historians have singled out this one failure as central to the ultimate downfall of the entire empire, as the constant wars against the Germanic tribes, and the need to defend the frontier on the Rhine at great expense against those tribes, helped bring the empire to its knees. There are elements of truth in such a conclusion, but the reality was far more fluid than is often realized. From the 1st century BCE until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE, the relationships between the wider empire and those living in what is now modern Germany were extremely complicated, involving much more than simple warfare. In fact, archaeologist Are Kolberg suggested that there were four distinct aspects that must be considered: military, trade, gifts, and plunder. One could also add the political aspect to this, given the impact that German troops came to exert in the elevation of different emperors to the throne at different times. As a Roman territory, Germania at one point included significant areas of land east of the Rhine, all the way up to the Elbe. The Romans would maintain a significant force on this eastern side until the 3rd century CE, but eventually a Frankish invasion ended that presence, and the term Germania came to refer specifically to the territory west of the Rhine, which included the two provinces of Germania Superior and Germania Inferior, or Upper and Lower Germany. Those provinces were key to the defense of the empire, so much so that Triers provided the location of one of the four seats of government near the end of Rome's reign. The people that came to be known as Germans originally came from Scandinavia and were mainly shepherds and hunters, but they comprised a number of distinct groups, the most important of which were the Goths, Vandals, Franks, and Saxons. Within each group, there were separate tribes, and as their populations grew, the land they occupied in Scandinavia was unable to support them, so they began migrating south, settling outside the borders of the Roman Empire. The Germans were fierce warriors who employed rather crude but effective tactics in battle. Their main approach was one of charging directly at an enemy and fighting hand-to-hand using their long swords and shields. Body armor was unknown, and they wore only animal-skins. Most warriors wore their hair long, dyed red and greased into ponytails. Friction between Rome and the German tribes can be traced back as far as 113 BCE, and the next 500 years brought full-scale campaigns by the Romans against the various individual tribes, resulting in numerous battles and constant uprisings wherever any part of the land east of the Rhine was occupied for any length of time. The impact of this constant warfare on both sides cannot be underestimated, and all the while, the fighting and other interactions had massive cultural and political influences going in both directions. Rome and Germania: The History of the Roman Empire's Conflicts and Interactions with Germanic Tribes examines the many battles and events that impacted how Rome co-existed with Germania over several centuries. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about Rome and Germania like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingEven at a distance, the acrid stench of asphalt and sulfur singes the hairs of people's nostrils, and when the blustering winds subside, the potent miasma lingers in the air. To the untrained eye, the La Brea Tar Pits seem to be nothing more than simply pools of thick, viscous black sludge, its obsidian-like surface bestrewn with an assortment of autumn leaves and dirt. Gooey methane bubbles spurt up periodically, shattering the glassy veneer of the grease-black lakes, and the shiny bubbles swell to varying sizes and wiggle from side to side before popping, the sticky collapse almost reminiscent of cracking open a chocolate molten lava cake. This black sludge might seem rather unremarkable after a few moments, as it appears to just sit there in its idle state, but in fact, the seemingly innocuous bubbles are symptomatic of the treacly dark substance lurking on the bottom of the pit. The pit's contents have spelled the doom for a countless number of creatures both large and small, from legions of insects to mighty mastodons, mammoths, and snarling saber-toothed cats from the Pleistocene Era. Of course, this is what makes the area a natural landmark in the first place, and today the La Brea Tar Pits are considered by many scientists to be among the greatest finds in modern history. Technically, these lustrous lakes of ink-black, while branded "tar," are in actuality pools of asphalt seeps that have remained in place for several millennia, gushing forth from a natural subterranean petroleum spring underneath the city of Los Angeles known as the "Salt Lake Oil Field." Needless to say, the tar pits are a far cry from the glittering, crystalline ponds cooled by the shade of surrounding palm trees found throughout the City of Angels. Indeed, the pungent reek of asphalt, pulsing methane bubbles, and their hauntingly black surfaces, making it impossible to gauge the true depth of the asphalt abysses, should have seemingly served as clear deterrents to the animals that roamed the vicinity prior to their entrapment. Instead, judging by the treasure trove of bones and remnants that have been uncovered within the pits, the sludge seemed to have figuratively emitted a siren song that no animal, regardless of stature or physical power, could resist. The disturbing and fascinating implications of the silent death traps, situated in what is now 5801 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, only further heightens their mystery. Evidence shows that the slow, torturous deaths of many of the creatures who became permanently ensnared in the asphalt quicksand were worsened by passing predators who essentially stumbled upon supper served on a sticky platter. Unfortunate, or rather, clumsy predators sometimes slipped, struggled, and were ultimately swallowed up by the tar pit themselves, creating a macabre, yet natural cycle of death and despair. Unsurprisingly, the La Brea Tar Pits have also become a wellspring of supernatural legends. According to one such legend, the disembodied, bone-chilling shrieks of a desperate woman, supposedly the La Brea Woman, victim of Los Angeles' oldest cold murder case, can still be heard in the dead of the night. More curious yet, these liquid time capsules are swaddled in another layer of mystique, its fossils not only solving mysterious riddles of a bygone age, but also offering up even more questions that are begging to be answered. The La Brea Tar Pits: The History and Legacy of One of the World's Most Famous Fossil Sites looks at the geological origins of the area and analyzes the fossil finds from the tar. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about the tar pits like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingOtto von Bismarck, the leading German statesman of the 19th century, once joked, "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the US of America." He said this not because the Americans were a great concern for him - his main interest in the US was trade -, but as the architect of the first unified German state, he was setting the tone for what two generations of German nationals would feel about America's apparent invulnerability. It would always be better, thus, to keep America away from Germany's business. Nonetheless, during the two major wars of the 20th century, America and Germany did indeed clash against each other, and in both cases, American entry into the war was a decisive factor in the defeat of the Germans. Germany had a good reason for desiring the non-interference of the American colossus: with a declining British Empire, and the rest of Europe mired in a diplomatic labyrinth, America seemed to be the only nation with the capacity to tip the scales in a major war. Germany respected and feared American power as much as the US marveled at Germany ́s impetus and its ability to mobilize an entire nation. Indeed, in both wars, the US waited until it believed it had no choice but to declare war and engage in a conflict that was taking place on the other side of the world. In World War I, it was the discovery of a German plan to attack the US through Mexico that overturned public opinion against neutrality, and in World War II, it wasn ́t until Pearl Harbor. Of course, this is not to say that America was not active in the war efforts before its official entry. Germany always tried to stay a step ahead and weaken the US where it least expected it: its own neighborhood. Thus, Germany placed great emphasis on luring Mexico into its sphere of influence. Operating in Canada was out of the question, not only because of the difficult access from the North Atlantic, but also because greater historical and cultural ties united the two neighbors. This was not the case with Mexico, and by taking advantage of the historical hostility and longstanding resentment of the Mexicans, Germany organized a secret operation against the US, a conspiracy of colossal proportions, a move so risky that, had it succeeded, it would have changed the face of Western hemisphere forever. On both occasions, Germany hoped to wage a proxy war against an undeclared enemy. In World War I, Germany planned an invasion from Mexico not once but on several occasions, one of them with a formal invitation to the president of Mexico to lead it. This would have been a German-Mexican coalition that, if successful, would have rewarded Mexico with part of the territories lost in 1847, namely Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. To be sure, the Kaiser knew that Mexico had no chance of winning that war, even with German aid, nor of regaining its lost territory, but the German Empire did not really care about Mexico, nor was expecting a Mexican victory. Germany only needed to buy more time, enough to defeat America's European allies so that when the US succeeded in subduing the Mexicans, it would have to negotiate with a victorious Germany. Though these efforts remain mostly unknown except for brief mentions of the Zimmermann Telegram, Germany did not hesitate to make use of the weak, unprepared Mexico, and operate against the US in order to fulfill its own objectives. In fact, "sacrificing" Mexico was seen as inevitable collateral damage. For the Kaiser in the First World War and the F hrer in the Second World War, utilizing Mexico as a strategic base to importune and hold back the US was a priority in the Americas. Once again, Mexico never had a chance to neutralize the US, but what it could do was to distract its forces, withhold its involvement in Europe, and possibly even weaken it.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingOtto von Bismarck, the leading German statesman of the 19th century, once joked, "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the US of America." He said this not because the Americans were a great concern for him - his main interest in the US was trade -, but as the architect of the first unified German state, he was setting the tone for what two generations of German nationals would feel about America's apparent invulnerability. It would always be better, thus, to keep America away from Germany's business. Nonetheless, during the two major wars of the 20th century, America and Germany did indeed clash against each other, and in both cases, American entry into the war was a decisive factor in the defeat of the Germans. Germany had a good reason for desiring the non-interference of the American colossus: with a declining British Empire, and the rest of Europe mired in a diplomatic labyrinth, America seemed to be the only nation with the capacity to tip the scales in a major war. Germany respected and feared American power as much as the US marveled at Germany ́s impetus and its ability to mobilize an entire nation. Indeed, in both wars, the US waited until it believed it had no choice but to declare war and engage in a conflict that was taking place on the other side of the world. In World War I, it was the discovery of a German plan to attack the US through Mexico that overturned public opinion against neutrality, and in World War II, it wasn ́t until Pearl Harbor. Of course, this is not to say that America was not active in the war efforts before its official entry. Germany always tried to stay a step ahead and weaken the US where it least expected it: its own neighborhood. Thus, Germany placed great emphasis on luring Mexico into its sphere of influence. Operating in Canada was out of the question, not only because of the difficult access from the North Atlantic, but also because greater historical and cultural ties united the two neighbors. This was not the case with Mexico, and by taking advantage of the historical hostility and longstanding resentment of the Mexicans, Germany organized a secret operation against the US, a conspiracy of colossal proportions, a move so risky that, had it succeeded, it would have changed the face of Western hemisphere forever. On both occasions, Germany hoped to wage a proxy war against an undeclared enemy. In World War I, Germany planned an invasion from Mexico not once but on several occasions, one of them with a formal invitation to the president of Mexico to lead it. This would have been a German-Mexican coalition that, if successful, would have rewarded Mexico with part of the territories lost in 1847, namely Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. To be sure, the Kaiser knew that Mexico had no chance of winning that war, even with German aid, nor of regaining its lost territory, but the German Empire did not really care about Mexico, nor was expecting a Mexican victory. Germany only needed to buy more time, enough to defeat America's European allies so that when the US succeeded in subduing the Mexicans, it would have to negotiate with a victorious Germany. Though these efforts remain mostly unknown except for brief mentions of the Zimmermann Telegram, Germany did not hesitate to make use of the weak, unprepared Mexico, and operate against the US in order to fulfill its own objectives. In fact, "sacrificing" Mexico was seen as inevitable collateral damage. For the Kaiser in the First World War and the F hrer in the Second World War, utilizing Mexico as a strategic base to importune and hold back the US was a priority in the Americas. Once again, Mexico never had a chance to neutralize the US, but what it could do was to distract its forces, withhold its involvement in Europe, and possibly even weaken it.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further reading"The darkness of the night then became as bright as day, due to the vast quantity of artificial fires. So bright was it indeed that we could see St Elmo quite clearly. The gunners of St Angelo... were able to lay and train their pieces upon the advancing Turks, who were picked out in the light of the fires." - Francisco Balbi, a Spanish soldier at the siegeFor centuries, Christians and Muslims were embroiled in one of the most infamous territorial disputes of all time, viciously and relentlessly battling one another for the Holy Land. In the heart of Jerusalem sat one of the shining jewels of the Christian faith, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Legend has it that this was where their Savior had been buried before his fabled resurrection. What was more, it was said to house the very cross Jesus Christ had died upon. It was for precisely these reasons that fearless pilgrims, near and far, risked their lives and made the treacherous trek to Jerusalem. Like other secretive groups, the mystery surrounding the Catholic military orders that sprung up in the wake of the First Crusade helped their legacies endure. While some conspiracy theorists attempt to tie the groups to other alleged secret socities like the Illuminati, other groups have tried to assert connections with them to bolster their own credentials. Who they were and what they had in their possession continue to be a source of great intrigue. After being forced out of Rhodes by the Ottomans in the early 16th century, the Knights Hospitaller spent seven years residing in Sicily without an official home or garrison, but around 1530, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V decided to gift the order the islands of Malta and Gozo, as well as the port city of Tripoli in North Africa, as a fiefdom. The emperor's motivations varied, but most historians believe he granted the knights the territory partially out of religious devotion and mainly to protect those regions from the looming Ottoman threat. Both Malta and Gozo were between Sicily and the North African coast and were prime locations for the Ottoman Empire to try to make their next move to gain inroads into Europe. In 1565, the Knights Hospitaller were attacked by Suleiman, who sent 40,000 soldiers to attempt to wrest control of Malta from them. This would become known as the Great Siege of Malta, lasting from May 18-September 11. The first two months of the siege were devastating for the Hospitallers, who lost most of their cities and half of their 8,000 knights. Resources were scarce and supplies were running low, resulting in starvation and disease. By August 18, the lines were ready to crumble, especially since the series of fortifications were spread out and difficult to defend. No help was forthcoming from the Viceroy of Sicily, who was under no obligation to assist because of the vague wording of the orders he received from King Philip II of Spain. Indeed, it could have been disastrous for Sicily since sacrificing their own troops would have left Sicily and Naples open to Ottoman invasion. When told to withdraw to spare the rest of the order, Grand Master Jean Parisot de Valette refused and held his ground, and finally, after months of ignoring the issue, the Viceroy of Sicily sent aid to the Knights Hospitaller after being badgered by his outraged officers. On August 23, the Ottomans launched their last assault upon Malta. The fighting was intense, and even wounded knights participated. The Ottoman army was unable to break through the Order's fortifications, as the garrison had repaired the worst of the damages and any breakages to avoid giving the Ottomans an advantage. After the Great Siege of Malta, the Knights Hospitaller would have no more decisive victories against their enemies, which should come as no surprise given that by the time the Ottomans left, the order only had 600 men capable of fighting.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingSome of the most iconic symbols of the Roman Empire that have survived into the modern world today are the arches that Romans erected to commemorate military victories and glorify individual emperors. The story of how arches came to be used throughout the Roman world in such a way is one that involves the evolution of the military and its leaders into the political forces that came to dominate the state, and those arches, along with the triumphs that came to be associated with many of them, were key parts in the process of exhibiting the might of both Rome. At the same time, they were meant to mark the individual achievements of Rome's rulers, making them an enormous and expensive PR exercise that steadily grew over the years. At its most basic, and in its earliest incarnation, the arch was a celebration of achievement and, as such, was part of a whole series of methods used by the Romans to record, reward, and publicize success. However, as the imperial period progressed, the arch came to symbolize much more and became exclusively associated with imperial might through the building of triumphal arches. The story of those arches is inextricably linked to the promotion of Rome as the greatest of all powers, and of its leaders as the most worthy and able of all commanders. Triumphal arches in Rome provided a centerpiece for triumphs that were restricted to the emperors and their immediate families after the establishment of the Roman Empire, but arches in the wider empire did not have this specific function. That said, as with those in Italy, foreign arches were strategically placed to ensure they were seen and passed through by the maximum number of people, subjecting them to scenes depicting Roman victories on a regular basis. These arches were inextricably linked to promoting Rome as the greatest of all powers, and also bound up in the policy of Romanization and assimilation of conquered territories and populations. Of course, these arches have intrigued historians for years. Franz Botho Graef, a German classical archaeologist and art historian, a prominent expert in the area, devoted his life to the identification and cataloguing of Roman arches. He documented 125 extant arches, and 30 further examples discerned from the literature or other sources, scattered throughout Rome and its provinces. Graef's listing is usually taken as the starting point for subsequent researchers, but another eminent historian in the field, A. Frothingham, has disputed Graef s listings, arguing that only 115 of the 125 identified arches actually existed. He also claimed to have identified 280 further "monuments and arches," the majority of which were located within Asia Minor, North Africa, and Syria. However, this methodological approach introduced a new category - monuments - into the cataloguing process, which has only served to complicate the debate. The building process of arches was long and protracted, but it typically served the empire well. Indeed, the success of this physical statement can perhaps be best measured by the number of similar arches erected around the world centuries after the end of the Roman Empire, including the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the Narva Triumphal Arch in Saint Petersburg, the Wellington Arch in London, and the India Gate in Delhi. Roman Arches: The History of the Famous Monuments in Rome and Throughout the Roman Empire examines the events surrounding the celebrations, accounts of them, and how the arches influenced other architectural monuments. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about Roman arches like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingSome of the most iconic symbols of the Roman Empire that have survived into the modern world today are the arches that Romans erected to commemorate military victories and glorify individual emperors. The story of how arches came to be used throughout the Roman world in such a way is one that involves the evolution of the military and its leaders into the political forces that came to dominate the state, and those arches, along with the triumphs that came to be associated with many of them, were key parts in the process of exhibiting the might of both Rome. At the same time, they were meant to mark the individual achievements of Rome's rulers, making them an enormous and expensive PR exercise that steadily grew over the years. At its most basic, and in its earliest incarnation, the arch was a celebration of achievement and, as such, was part of a whole series of methods used by the Romans to record, reward, and publicize success. However, as the imperial period progressed, the arch came to symbolize much more and became exclusively associated with imperial might through the building of triumphal arches. The story of those arches is inextricably linked to the promotion of Rome as the greatest of all powers, and of its leaders as the most worthy and able of all commanders. Triumphal arches in Rome provided a centerpiece for triumphs that were restricted to the emperors and their immediate families after the establishment of the Roman Empire, but arches in the wider empire did not have this specific function. That said, as with those in Italy, foreign arches were strategically placed to ensure they were seen and passed through by the maximum number of people, subjecting them to scenes depicting Roman victories on a regular basis. These arches were inextricably linked to promoting Rome as the greatest of all powers, and also bound up in the policy of Romanization and assimilation of conquered territories and populations. Of course, these arches have intrigued historians for years. Franz Botho Graef, a German classical archaeologist and art historian, a prominent expert in the area, devoted his life to the identification and cataloguing of Roman arches. He documented 125 extant arches, and 30 further examples discerned from the literature or other sources, scattered throughout Rome and its provinces. Graef's listing is usually taken as the starting point for subsequent researchers, but another eminent historian in the field, A. Frothingham, has disputed Graef s listings, arguing that only 115 of the 125 identified arches actually existed. He also claimed to have identified 280 further "monuments and arches," the majority of which were located within Asia Minor, North Africa, and Syria. However, this methodological approach introduced a new category - monuments - into the cataloguing process, which has only served to complicate the debate. The building process of arches was long and protracted, but it typically served the empire well. Indeed, the success of this physical statement can perhaps be best measured by the number of similar arches erected around the world centuries after the end of the Roman Empire, including the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the Narva Triumphal Arch in Saint Petersburg, the Wellington Arch in London, and the India Gate in Delhi. Arches and Triumphs in Ancient Rome: The History of the Roman Empire's Most Famous Military Celebrations and Monuments examines the events surrounding the celebrations, accounts of them, and how they influenced other architectural monuments. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about the arches and triumphs like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of both men's workCarl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz died almost 200 years ago, yet he remains one of the most important and influential of all military thinkers. His teachings combined strategy with military knowledge to produce a dialectic approach to the philosophy of warfare, and his work is still widely taught in military academies around the world. There are few senior military leaders anywhere who are not familiar with his seminal book, On War. In fact, with the exception of Napoleon Bonaparte, no man was more influential on the military tactics and strategy of 19th century warfare than Clausewitz, a Prussian soldier and military theorist who stressed the moral and political aspects of war. On War was mandatory for all military students and officers to read during the 19th century, and it was common practice for generals during the American Civil War to carry Clausewitz's treatise and read it to assist them in strategy and tactics. On War covered every conceivable facet of warfare, using historical battles as examples of what to do and what not to do. The treatise discusses how opposite forces interact, and how unexpected new developments unfolding under the "fog of war" called for rapid decisions by alert commanders. In opposition to Antoine-Henri Jomini, he argued war could not be quantified or graphed or reduced to mapwork and graphs. Few men were more influential on the military tactics and strategy of 19th century warfare than Antoine-Henri Jomini, and yet the introduction for a 1947 English translation of Jomini's Art of War noted, "The military world that today burns gun-powder at the altar of Clausewitzian doctrine has all but forgotten Antoine-Henri Jomini." The author of that introduction, Lt. Col. J. D. Little of the US Marine Corps, was right then, and he remains correct today - while Clausewitz's aphorisms are still used to support everything from military action to business management, the work of his contemporary writer Jomini has been all but forgotten. During the Napoleonic Era and throughout the 19th century, however, the situation was very different. Jomini was regarded as the preeminent strategist and writer of his generation, while Clausewitz was virtually unknown outside the General Staff of the Prussian Army. In the intervening period, Clausewitz has come to be regarded as the most important writer and strategic analyst of the period, whereas the writings of Jomini have been discarded and largely ignored. As a result, many military historians and strategists have only recently begun to understand how important Jomini was and how relevant his writings remain today. In lamenting what had happened to Jomini's reputation, Little asserted, "No man in the history of war has exerted a greater influence on the development of modern warfare than Napoleon Bonaparte. No man has been more responsible for Napoleon's influence as Antoine-Henri Jomini." Again, Little had a point, because unlike Clausewitz, the writings of Jomini had a direct influence on the conduct of wars during the 19th century. While Clausewitz was not widely read outside Prussia (and later Germany) until the final years of the 19th century, few generals in Europe and America were unfamiliar with Jomini's works, and many used his Summary of the Art of War as their main guide to strategy and tactics. Why is it that Jomini has been forgotten while Clausewitz's name is now far more famous than it ever was during his lifetime? One of the reasons is that Clausewitz attempted to develop a philosophy of war that went well beyond the mechanics of combat. Such a philosophy is timeless precisely because it is not linked to the tactics or weapons of a particular period. This is made evident by the fact that as recently as the First Gulf War (1990-1991), senior military leaders in the coalition against Iraq were quoting Clausewitz.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingToday, Chechnya is a republic with some degree of autonomy in the contemporary Russian Federation. Its population is just over a million people, and it stretches over an area of 17,000 square kilometers. The majority of Chechnya's population is comprised of Sunni Muslims, meaning religion has played a key role in the territory's development. In southwestern Russia, landlocked within 100 kilometers of the Caspian Sea, Chechnya is north of the Caucasian mountains, bordering other North Caucasus provinces such as North Ossetia, and Dagestan, and Georgia. Russia itself is a well-established Slavic, Orthodox Christian country, though its majority Muslim provinces were not obvious to outsiders until the post-Soviet conflicts of the 1990s. The history of the Chechen people in the region is, nevertheless, long-established, and Chechnya has become synonymous with conflict, civil war, and discontent. While many people are aware of that, few understand how things reached that point. The area is complex and fascinating, representing one of the world's true fault lines in terms of religion, empire, and geography. Wedged in the North Caucasus mountain range and bordering the Caspian Sea, Dagestan is a true meeting point of cultures, religions and geopolitical rivalries. A crossroad between east and west, Dagestan has been vitally important at different times for various powers in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and even between different religious and ethnic groups. In spite of all that, and in large measure because of it, Dagestan's society is a composite of these rivalries over the centuries. Today, Dagestan is part of the Russian Federation, but its history happens to be both indicative and idiosyncratic of the region's fascinating and complex development. Dagestan shares many similarities with its smaller neighbor to the west, Chechnya, without receiving as much attention from outside historians and journalists. This is despite the fact Dagestan is home to around three million inhabitants with a range of languages, ethnicities and religions. Islam is the dominant religion at over 80% of the population, with the majority being Sunni Muslims, but the majority ethnic group, the Ayars, only make up about 30% of the population. Dagestan's capital city is little-known Makhachkala, and the rest of the country contains spectacular mountain ranges of over 12,000 feet in height, as well as lakes and major rivers like the Terek, Sulak and Samur. This geography has made Dagestan particularly difficult for outsiders to dominate, but the relationships with outside powers nevertheless provided the tensions that runs through the history of Dagestan. Having come into contact with the Persians, Ottomans, Russians, and even Western European states, Dagestan has both been a melting point and at times almost hermetically sealed to intruders for centuries, making it one of the world's true fault lines in terms of religion, empire, and geography. As a result, Dagestan has never truly been conquered despite its modern position within Russia. It has always retained some degree of autonomy while outsiders, not least the Russians, have treated the country with a certain level of wariness. Chechnya and Dagestan: The History of the North Caucasus Republics and Their Conflicts with Russia examines the history of one of the most controversial regions in the world. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about Chechnya and Dagestan like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingThe internment of Japanese Americans in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor is second only to slavery in terms of America's most tragic and regrettable chapters in history. While the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast during the Second World War is widely recognized - they have even received apologies and compensation from the U. S. government - what is not as well-known is that between 1941 and 1948, approximately 10,000 Americans of German descent were also forcibly interned at camps scattered across the United States. Some refugees, who had fled from Germany in an attempt to escape Nazi persecution, were rounded up, interned, and later used in a prisoner exchange program between the United States and German governments. The American government also went to great lengths to secure Germans living across Latin America who they believed posed a tangible threat should they cross America's southern border. In spite of a preponderance of evidence affirming the occurrence of these events, the United States government persistently denied it for decades. The public was largely unaware these atrocities had occurred, and hardly a single history was found to mention them. Winkler, for instance, fallaciously asserted that "German-Americans, treated poorly by their fellow Americans during World War I, were now more fully assimilated into American life and were largely left alone." The legal precedent for interning enemy aliens during wartime was the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This legislation permitted the detention of enemy aliens or "aliens of enemy ancestry" by the federal government, upon declaration of war or tangible threat of invasion. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's direction in 1939, J. Edgar Hoover began a "secret five-year plan to list all individuals who he believed posed a security risk to the United States." Roosevelt was keenly aware of the public hysteria and paranoia regarding aliens of enemy ancestry during the First World War and sought to do things differently as another potential war approached. Later that same year, Hoover reported to Congress that he had over 10,000,000 people already under surveillance and had collected enough data to track these individuals down and arrest them, if necessary. While certain security concerns were undoubtedly legitimate, in order to minimize the likelihood of history repeating itself, the federal government was cautious to refrain from ethnically-oriented propaganda. Roosevelt was unwilling to subject the American people to another era of lynching and widespread persecution, and in a roundabout way, preemptive registration and possible internment could have been one way to avoid it. During the First World War, anti-German sentiment had led to the virtual eradication of an entire people's culture, not to mention the loss of lives on the part of those with ethnic ties to the enemy who displayed even the slightest hint of anti-patriotism. Internment had been attempted during World War I, but on a much lesser scale than Roosevelt had envisioned. Thus, ironically, the Roosevelt administration actively violated the civil rights of those with enemy alien ancestry to prevent similar hysteria from gripping the nation a second time, and ultimately the authorities failed to establish that some who were detained actually posed a national security risk. The Internment of Japanese-Americans and German-Americans during World War II: The History and Legacy of the Federal Government's Most Controversial Wartime Policy examines one of the darkest chapters in American history. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about the decision to intern Japanese-Americans and German-Americans like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingThe internment of Japanese Americans in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor is second only to slavery in terms of America's most tragic and regrettable chapters in history. While the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast during the Second World War is widely recognized - they have even received apologies and compensation from the U. S. government - what is not as well-known is that between 1941 and 1948, approximately 10,000 Americans of German descent were also forcibly interned at camps scattered across the United States. Some refugees, who had fled from Germany in an attempt to escape Nazi persecution, were rounded up, interned, and later used in a prisoner exchange program between the United States and German governments. The American government also went to great lengths to secure Germans living across Latin America who they believed posed a tangible threat should they cross America's southern border. In spite of a preponderance of evidence affirming the occurrence of these events, the United States government persistently denied it for decades. The public was largely unaware these atrocities had occurred, and hardly a single history was found to mention them. Winkler, for instance, fallaciously asserted that "German-Americans, treated poorly by their fellow Americans during World War I, were now more fully assimilated into American life and were largely left alone." The legal precedent for interning enemy aliens during wartime was the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This legislation permitted the detention of enemy aliens or "aliens of enemy ancestry" by the federal government, upon declaration of war or tangible threat of invasion. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's direction in 1939, J. Edgar Hoover began a "secret five-year plan to list all individuals who he believed posed a security risk to the United States." Roosevelt was keenly aware of the public hysteria and paranoia regarding aliens of enemy ancestry during the First World War and sought to do things differently as another potential war approached. Later that same year, Hoover reported to Congress that he had over 10,000,000 people already under surveillance and had collected enough data to track these individuals down and arrest them, if necessary. While certain security concerns were undoubtedly legitimate, in order to minimize the likelihood of history repeating itself, the federal government was cautious to refrain from ethnically-oriented propaganda. Roosevelt was unwilling to subject the American people to another era of lynching and widespread persecution, and in a roundabout way, preemptive registration and possible internment could have been one way to avoid it. During the First World War, anti-German sentiment had led to the virtual eradication of an entire people's culture, not to mention the loss of lives on the part of those with ethnic ties to the enemy who displayed even the slightest hint of anti-patriotism. Internment had been attempted during World War I, but on a much lesser scale than Roosevelt had envisioned. Thus, ironically, the Roosevelt administration actively violated the civil rights of those with enemy alien ancestry to prevent similar hysteria from gripping the nation a second time, and ultimately the authorities failed to establish that some who were detained actually posed a national security risk. The Internment of Japanese-Americans and German-Americans during World War II: The History and Legacy of the Federal Government's Most Controversial Wartime Policy examines one of the darkest chapters in American history. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about the decision to intern Japanese-Americans and German-Americans like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of both men's workCarl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz died almost 200 years ago, yet he remains one of the most important and influential of all military thinkers. His teachings combined strategy with military knowledge to produce a dialectic approach to the philosophy of warfare, and his work is still widely taught in military academies around the world. There are few senior military leaders anywhere who are not familiar with his seminal book, On War. In fact, with the exception of Napoleon Bonaparte, no man was more influential on the military tactics and strategy of 19th century warfare than Clausewitz, a Prussian soldier and military theorist who stressed the moral and political aspects of war. On War was mandatory for all military students and officers to read during the 19th century, and it was common practice for generals during the American Civil War to carry Clausewitz's treatise and read it to assist them in strategy and tactics. On War covered every conceivable facet of warfare, using historical battles as examples of what to do and what not to do. The treatise discusses how opposite forces interact, and how unexpected new developments unfolding under the "fog of war" called for rapid decisions by alert commanders. In opposition to Antoine-Henri Jomini, he argued war could not be quantified or graphed or reduced to mapwork and graphs. Few men were more influential on the military tactics and strategy of 19th century warfare than Antoine-Henri Jomini, and yet the introduction for a 1947 English translation of Jomini's Art of War noted, "The military world that today burns gun-powder at the altar of Clausewitzian doctrine has all but forgotten Antoine-Henri Jomini." The author of that introduction, Lt. Col. J. D. Little of the US Marine Corps, was right then, and he remains correct today - while Clausewitz's aphorisms are still used to support everything from military action to business management, the work of his contemporary writer Jomini has been all but forgotten. During the Napoleonic Era and throughout the 19th century, however, the situation was very different. Jomini was regarded as the preeminent strategist and writer of his generation, while Clausewitz was virtually unknown outside the General Staff of the Prussian Army. In the intervening period, Clausewitz has come to be regarded as the most important writer and strategic analyst of the period, whereas the writings of Jomini have been discarded and largely ignored. As a result, many military historians and strategists have only recently begun to understand how important Jomini was and how relevant his writings remain today. In lamenting what had happened to Jomini's reputation, Little asserted, "No man in the history of war has exerted a greater influence on the development of modern warfare than Napoleon Bonaparte. No man has been more responsible for Napoleon's influence as Antoine-Henri Jomini." Again, Little had a point, because unlike Clausewitz, the writings of Jomini had a direct influence on the conduct of wars during the 19th century. While Clausewitz was not widely read outside Prussia (and later Germany) until the final years of the 19th century, few generals in Europe and America were unfamiliar with Jomini's works, and many used his Summary of the Art of War as their main guide to strategy and tactics. Why is it that Jomini has been forgotten while Clausewitz's name is now far more famous than it ever was during his lifetime? One of the reasons is that Clausewitz attempted to develop a philosophy of war that went well beyond the mechanics of combat. Such a philosophy is timeless precisely because it is not linked to the tactics or weapons of a particular period. This is made evident by the fact that as recently as the First Gulf War (1990-1991), senior military leaders in the coalition against Iraq were quoting Clausewitz.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingToday, Chechnya is a republic with some degree of autonomy in the contemporary Russian Federation. Its population is just over a million people, and it stretches over an area of 17,000 square kilometers. The majority of Chechnya's population is comprised of Sunni Muslims, meaning religion has played a key role in the territory's development. In southwestern Russia, landlocked within 100 kilometers of the Caspian Sea, Chechnya is north of the Caucasian mountains, bordering other North Caucasus provinces such as North Ossetia, and Dagestan, and Georgia. Russia itself is a well-established Slavic, Orthodox Christian country, though its majority Muslim provinces were not obvious to outsiders until the post-Soviet conflicts of the 1990s. The history of the Chechen people in the region is, nevertheless, long-established, and Chechnya has become synonymous with conflict, civil war, and discontent. While many people are aware of that, few understand how things reached that point. The area is complex and fascinating, representing one of the world's true fault lines in terms of religion, empire, and geography. Wedged in the North Caucasus mountain range and bordering the Caspian Sea, Dagestan is a true meeting point of cultures, religions and geopolitical rivalries. A crossroad between east and west, Dagestan has been vitally important at different times for various powers in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and even between different religious and ethnic groups. In spite of all that, and in large measure because of it, Dagestan's society is a composite of these rivalries over the centuries. Today, Dagestan is part of the Russian Federation, but its history happens to be both indicative and idiosyncratic of the region's fascinating and complex development. Dagestan shares many similarities with its smaller neighbor to the west, Chechnya, without receiving as much attention from outside historians and journalists. This is despite the fact Dagestan is home to around three million inhabitants with a range of languages, ethnicities and religions. Islam is the dominant religion at over 80% of the population, with the majority being Sunni Muslims, but the majority ethnic group, the Ayars, only make up about 30% of the population. Dagestan's capital city is little-known Makhachkala, and the rest of the country contains spectacular mountain ranges of over 12,000 feet in height, as well as lakes and major rivers like the Terek, Sulak and Samur. This geography has made Dagestan particularly difficult for outsiders to dominate, but the relationships with outside powers nevertheless provided the tensions that runs through the history of Dagestan. Having come into contact with the Persians, Ottomans, Russians, and even Western European states, Dagestan has both been a melting point and at times almost hermetically sealed to intruders for centuries, making it one of the world's true fault lines in terms of religion, empire, and geography. As a result, Dagestan has never truly been conquered despite its modern position within Russia. It has always retained some degree of autonomy while outsiders, not least the Russians, have treated the country with a certain level of wariness. Chechnya and Dagestan: The History of the North Caucasus Republics and Their Conflicts with Russia examines the history of one of the most controversial regions in the world. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about Chechnya and Dagestan like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of contemporary accounts*Includes a bibliography for further readingThe exploration of the early American West, beginning with Lewis and Clark's transcontinental trek at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson, was not accomplished by standing armies, the era's new steam train technology, or by way of land grabs. These came later, but not until pathways known only to a few of the land's indigenous people were discovered, carved out, and charted in an area stretching from the eastern Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and the present-day borders of Mexico and Canada. Even the great survey parties, such as Colonel William Powell's exploration of the Colorado River, came decades later. The first views of the West's enormity by white Americans were seen by individuals of an entirely different personality, in an era that could only exist apart from its home civilization. Naturally, the West was an endless source of fascination for those who were either personally or circumstantially ill-suited to travel there. As explorers opened trails and people expanded the frontier, unusual walks of life like cattle drives and hunting became commonplace, as did images of dusty boomtowns. Before the Transcontinental Railroad connected the Atlantic and Pacific, the Old West possessed a distinctly separate culture from the East Coast, and cowboys, early settlers, and an enormous array of indigenous peoples produced a hybrid culture that seemed doomed to disappear as a result of the inevitable modernization. Many of the first artists in the West were assigned to exploration and geological parties, working as archivists and obedient to demands of cold accuracy. However, a few were driven by an imaginative mix of real events and fantastical visions to whet the appetite of Eastern consumers and preserve their own nostalgia on canvas. Among the most prominent artists depicting the "old" West was Charles Marion Russell, a prolific painter, sculptor, writer, and storyteller based in the heart of the Montana country. Through his years of capturing scenes of daily life between cowboys and Indians before a backdrop of exquisite Montana scenery, he was known by the names of C. M. Russell, Charlie Russell, and "Kid" Russell. As an artist greatly esteemed among art devotees and virtually all Westerners who knew him, he acquired monikers such as the "Rembrandt of the Range" and the "Cowboy Artist." Entirely self-trained, Russell left over 4,000 works that include paintings and bronze sculptures of cowboys, Indians, and the landscapes of the West, as well as Alberta, Canada. As an advocate and activist for the Native Americans, he supported the improvement of reservation conditions and spoke out for the Chippewa's bid for the right to live in Montana. This right was validated by Congress in the early 20th century with the creation of the Rocky Boy Reservation. Russell sketched and painted throughout his life, defying the constrictions of a daily work regimen, but he aspired to work primarily as a cowboy for many years with the understandable assumption that his art would never provide a sustainable living. A fortuitous marriage launched Russell into international art circles, and it brought him a level of wealth never anticipated by the would-be cattle wrangler. By the end of the 19th century, the West had diminished as a cultural entity and rapidly lapsed into a geographical concept attempting to conform itself to the ways of the East. Russell's vast body of work served as an "eternal commentary" on the passing of an epic American experience. With few to mark the West's "lingering death," Russell served not only as an artist evoking the vivid richness of Native American and cowboy life, but as a chronicler and visual biographer of an age that would not come again. He is remembered for his skill in capturing the West's people and landscapes.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of contemporary accounts*Includes a bibliography for further readingThe exploration of the early American West, beginning with Lewis and Clark's transcontinental trek at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson, was not accomplished by standing armies, the era's new steam train technology, or by way of land grabs. These came later, but not until pathways known only to a few of the land's indigenous people were discovered, carved out, and charted in an area stretching from the eastern Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and the present-day borders of Mexico and Canada. Even the great survey parties, such as Colonel William Powell's exploration of the Colorado River, came decades later. The first views of the West's enormity by white Americans were seen by individuals of an entirely different personality, in an era that could only exist apart from its home civilization. Naturally, the West was an endless source of fascination for those who were either personally or circumstantially ill-suited to travel there. As explorers opened trails and people expanded the frontier, unusual walks of life like cattle drives and hunting became commonplace, as did images of dusty boomtowns. Before the Transcontinental Railroad connected the Atlantic and Pacific, the Old West possessed a distinctly separate culture from the East Coast, and cowboys, early settlers, and an enormous array of indigenous peoples produced a hybrid culture that seemed doomed to disappear as a result of the inevitable modernization. Many of the first artists in the West were assigned to exploration and geological parties, working as archivists and obedient to demands of cold accuracy. However, a few were driven by an imaginative mix of real events and fantastical visions to whet the appetite of Eastern consumers and preserve their own nostalgia on canvas. Among the most prominent artists depicting the "old" West was Charles Marion Russell, a prolific painter, sculptor, writer, and storyteller based in the heart of the Montana country. Through his years of capturing scenes of daily life between cowboys and Indians before a backdrop of exquisite Montana scenery, he was known by the names of C. M. Russell, Charlie Russell, and "Kid" Russell. As an artist greatly esteemed among art devotees and virtually all Westerners who knew him, he acquired monikers such as the "Rembrandt of the Range" and the "Cowboy Artist." Entirely self-trained, Russell left over 4,000 works that include paintings and bronze sculptures of cowboys, Indians, and the landscapes of the West, as well as Alberta, Canada. As an advocate and activist for the Native Americans, he supported the improvement of reservation conditions and spoke out for the Chippewa's bid for the right to live in Montana. This right was validated by Congress in the early 20th century with the creation of the Rocky Boy Reservation. Russell sketched and painted throughout his life, defying the constrictions of a daily work regimen, but he aspired to work primarily as a cowboy for many years with the understandable assumption that his art would never provide a sustainable living. A fortuitous marriage launched Russell into international art circles, and it brought him a level of wealth never anticipated by the would-be cattle wrangler. By the end of the 19th century, the West had diminished as a cultural entity and rapidly lapsed into a geographical concept attempting to conform itself to the ways of the East. Russell's vast body of work served as an "eternal commentary" on the passing of an epic American experience. With few to mark the West's "lingering death," Russell served not only as an artist evoking the vivid richness of Native American and cowboy life, but as a chronicler and visual biographer of an age that would not come again. He is remembered for his skill in capturing the West's people and landscapes.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of the Bible and ancient accounts*Includes a bibliography for further readingIf the world had a navel, it would be the Dead Sea, the lowest point on Earth where one can still stand on dry land. The photographs of this unique lake seem to be taken from a science fiction movie, or a land devastated after a nuclear holocaust. To others, the fluffy shores could remind them of Antarctica although it is in one of the warmest spots on the planet. Its white, creamy masses, scattered along golden beaches, are not ice floes or frozen water, but effervescent salt formations. The famous Jordan River, where the Hebrew people entered the Promised Land and Jesus was baptized, flows into the lake, but the basin is so deeply sunk into the face of the planet that the waters never leave, as if they had fallen into a small black hole where nothing can escape. If the level of the lake does not increase, despite having no drainage to the sea, it is as a result of intense evaporation. The Dead Sea is also an archaeological site loaded with history. Known among the first civilizations in the region as "Sea of Asphalt" and "Salt Sea," innumerable myths and legends lend it an air of mystery, as if it attracted sterility and misfortune while eradicating all life from its waters. It was perhaps the inhospitable feel of the place, the almost total desolation surrounding it, which led the writer of the Pentateuch to imagine that many years ago, a cataclysm sent to annihilate perverted people had taken place there. The Book of Genesis, possibly picking up the memory of a catastrophic event, placed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah near the Dead Sea, and they were left desolate after fire rained from the sky. An Arab explorer from the Middle Ages called it "the gate of hell" due to its desolate landscapes, extreme temperature, and stinking air. Nothing can live in the waters of the Dead Sea aside from some single-celled organisms and certain fungi due to its high salinity - the third part of the blue that fills the basin are minerals. If the waters contain no life, the desert shores, which in some places form fantastic salt statues, reflect this desolation. As a reminder of its scanty hospitality, the largest group of cemeteries in the ancient world, with tens of thousands of graves, are located in the area. The Dead Sea truly lives up to its name. Today the Dead Sea is of interest not only to historians, archaeologists, and geologists, but also for tourists, as it has become one of the preferred destinations in visits to the Middle East. The sight of naked bathers covered in dark mud, like black statues of asphalt floating without sinking on the silent waters may have inspired ancient travelers to say that some sorcerers lived there. However, in recent years, the growing demand for water for the development of Israel and Jordan, which has required more and more extraction from the Jordan River, is jeopardizing the viability of this wonder of nature. In the last 50 years, it is estimated that the lake area decreased to almost half of what it was a century ago. Reviving the Dead Sea is one of the priorities for the nations that share its waters, and to achieve this, pharaonic projects have been resurrected, such as carrying water from other oceans to prevent Lake Asphaltites, which has never been conducive to life, to end up dying itself. The Dead Sea: The History and Legacy of the Most Unique Lake in the World traces the tragedies and stories associated with one of the most fascinating sites on Earth. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about the Dead Sea like never before.

"Quien sea que despu s de m se convierta en rey y reasiente Hattusa, que el Dios Tormenta del Cielo lo golpee " - Inscripci n hitita encontrada en la ciudad capital, Hattusa. Las p ginas de los libros de texto de historia mundial contienen una letan a de imperios y civilizaciones "perdidas", pero generalmente, tras una revisi n m s profunda, se revela que estos llamados imperios perdidos son a menudo culturas menos conocidas, que tuvieron un impacto menos aparente en la historia que otras civilizaciones mejor conocidas. Cuando se recorren las p ginas de la historia en busca de una civilizaci n que se perdi inexplicablemente, pero que tuvo un gran impacto durante su tiempo, pueden encontrarse muy pocos candidatos, pero los hititas son un ejemplo notable. De hecho, los hititas fueron un pueblo antiguo que sigue siendo algo enigm tico, y quiz s poco conocido para la mayor a de las personas, pero su influencia sobre el Antiguo Oriente Pr ximo es innegable. Desde lo alto de su capital, Hattusa, en el centro de Anatolia, los hititas pudieron conquistar y controlar un reino que abarc aproximadamente el rea de los estados-naci n modernos de Turqu a, Siria y partes de Irak y L bano, mediante una combinaci n de fuerza militar bruta y astutas maquinaciones diplom ticas. En comparaci n con algunos de sus contempor neos, incluidos los egipcios, asirios y babilonios, los hititas eran algo distantes, tanto cultural como geogr ficamente. Los hititas eran un grupo de habla indoeuropea en un oc ano de grupos afroasi ticos y sem ticos; su tierra natal estaba al norte de Mesopotamia, y no conten a ning n r o importante como los r os Nilo, Tigris o ufrates. El Imperio hitita tambi n fue mucho menos duradero que sus vecinos, pues solo existi entre 1800 y 1200 AEC, aproximadamente (van de Mieroop 2007, 156), lo que es considerablemente m s corto que la mayor a de los otros reinos principales del Cercano Oriente. Dicho esto, la influencia de los hititas en la pol tica, econom a y la situaci n en general del Antiguo Oriente no puede subestimarse; mientras existieron, los hititas fueron una fuerza a tener en cuenta. Las fuentes utilizadas para reconstruir la historia y la cronolog a hititas son muchas y variadas, y dado que los hititas eran un pueblo alfabetizado que desarroll un corpus de literatura bastante sofisticado, los antiguos archivos hititas pueden usarse para reconstruir eventos. Desafortunadamente, los hititas no tuvieron mucho inter s en fechar sus fuentes, por lo que la mayor parte de las dataciones dependen de fuentes del Antiguo Egipto (Macqueen 2003, 8). Las fuentes egipcias tambi n proporcionan excelentes detalles de eventos que los hititas se negaron a mencionar en sus propios textos, que no han sido descubiertos a n, o que se han perdido en el tiempo. Por supuesto, la arqueolog a moderna tambi n ha ayudado a completar el conocimiento acerca de la civilizaci n hitita, especialmente en lo concerniente a la vida palaciega y religiosa en la antigua capital, Hattusa. Bas ndose en estas fuentes, as como en estudios de eminentes estudiosos de la materia, es posible examinar qui nes fueron los hititas, su influencia en el Antiguo Oriente, y el colapso final de su imperio. Los hititas: La historia y legado del imperio olvidado de la Edad del Bronce analiza la historia y el legado de los hititas a lo largo de varios siglos. En conjunto con fotograf as de personas, lugares y eventos importantes, aprender sobre la historia de los hititas como nunca antes, y en muy poco tiempo.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingIn today's modern world every political regime, even the most authoritarian or repressive, describes itself as democracy or a Democratic People's Republic. The concept of rule by the people, on behalf of the people, has come to be accepted as the norm, and very few would overtly espouse the cause of dictatorship, absolute monarchy or oligarchy as the most desirable political system upon which to base the government of any country. It is also generally accepted that democracy, as a political ideology, began in Greece, specifically in Athens, in the 7th century BCE and reached its zenith in the 5th century under the leadership of Pericles. Dating an exact starting point is impossible, but at the beginning of the 7th century BCE, Solon inaugurated a series of reforms that began the movement away from rule by individuals, or tyrants, and by the end of that century the reforms of Cleisthenes provided the basis of the Athenian democratic system that culminated in the radical institutions introduced by Ephialtes and Pericles in the 5th century. The result was the first, and possibly only, truly participative democratic state. Of course, not every inhabitant of Athens enjoyed the right to vote. Only full citizens could do that, and they represented approximately 30% of Athens's male population, numbering between 30,000 and 60,000 during Athens' Golden Age and declining rapidly throughout the Peoloponnesian War. The remainder was made up of metics and slaves, who vastly outnumbered free citizens and, indeed, almost all other slave populations in Hellas, a fact which the Athenians often conveniently chose to forget when singing the praises of their democracy. There is a very strong indication that foreign chattel slaves were an utter necessity to Athens' economy, and though they did not serve as fleet rowers as they would have done in Rome, they still carried out the myriad of unpleasant and demeaning jobs which allowed Athenian citizens the free time to actively participate in the city's politics. In many ways, without slaves, there would have been no democracy in Athens. The period of the Roman Republic, generally dated from 509-27 BCE, is an entirely different matter. There is significant documentation that enables historians to analyze how Rome cemented its position within the Italian peninsula before pushing ever outward to create the new provinces that formed the core of the vast Roman Empire in the third phase that came to dominate all of Europe for so long. The period of the Republic saw those with the emerging powers having to grapple with new political situations, the administration of a diverse domain while contending with political disorder at home, commercial and financial expansion, and complex issues of land distribution, the role of the military, new ideas in religion, and the emergence of new class systems. At the same time, the Greeks and Romans would not have recognized, or accepted, any of today's modern versions of democracy as being truly "democratic." A rejection of dictatorships masquerading as democracies would be understandable, but the ancients would have been equally scathing of Western-style representative democracies that they would undoubtedly have seen as anti-democratic. The key to democracy, as far as the Greeks and Romans were concerned, was active participation by the citizen body in all political aspects of life. Early Democracy: The History and Legacy of the World's Democratic Systems from Antiquity to the French Revolution traces the formation of democracy from prehistory to the notorious French Revolution that cast off the anciens regime. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about early democracy like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes a bibliography for further readingIn today's modern world every political regime, even the most authoritarian or repressive, describes itself as democracy or a Democratic People's Republic. The concept of rule by the people, on behalf of the people, has come to be accepted as the norm, and very few would overtly espouse the cause of dictatorship, absolute monarchy or oligarchy as the most desirable political system upon which to base the government of any country. It is also generally accepted that democracy, as a political ideology, began in Greece, specifically in Athens, in the 7th century BCE and reached its zenith in the 5th century under the leadership of Pericles. Dating an exact starting point is impossible, but at the beginning of the 7th century BCE, Solon inaugurated a series of reforms that began the movement away from rule by individuals, or tyrants, and by the end of that century the reforms of Cleisthenes provided the basis of the Athenian democratic system that culminated in the radical institutions introduced by Ephialtes and Pericles in the 5th century. The result was the first, and possibly only, truly participative democratic state. Of course, not every inhabitant of Athens enjoyed the right to vote. Only full citizens could do that, and they represented approximately 30% of Athens's male population, numbering between 30,000 and 60,000 during Athens' Golden Age and declining rapidly throughout the Peoloponnesian War. The remainder was made up of metics and slaves, who vastly outnumbered free citizens and, indeed, almost all other slave populations in Hellas, a fact which the Athenians often conveniently chose to forget when singing the praises of their democracy. There is a very strong indication that foreign chattel slaves were an utter necessity to Athens' economy, and though they did not serve as fleet rowers as they would have done in Rome, they still carried out the myriad of unpleasant and demeaning jobs which allowed Athenian citizens the free time to actively participate in the city's politics. In many ways, without slaves, there would have been no democracy in Athens. The period of the Roman Republic, generally dated from 509-27 BCE, is an entirely different matter. There is significant documentation that enables historians to analyze how Rome cemented its position within the Italian peninsula before pushing ever outward to create the new provinces that formed the core of the vast Roman Empire in the third phase that came to dominate all of Europe for so long. The period of the Republic saw those with the emerging powers having to grapple with new political situations, the administration of a diverse domain while contending with political disorder at home, commercial and financial expansion, and complex issues of land distribution, the role of the military, new ideas in religion, and the emergence of new class systems. At the same time, the Greeks and Romans would not have recognized, or accepted, any of today's modern versions of democracy as being truly "democratic." A rejection of dictatorships masquerading as democracies would be understandable, but the ancients would have been equally scathing of Western-style representative democracies that they would undoubtedly have seen as anti-democratic. The key to democracy, as far as the Greeks and Romans were concerned, was active participation by the citizen body in all political aspects of life. Early Democracy: The History and Legacy of the World's Democratic Systems from Antiquity to the French Revolution traces the formation of democracy from prehistory to the notorious French Revolution that cast off the anciens regime. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about early democracy like never before.

*Includes pictures*Includes excerpts of contemporary accounts*Includes a bibliography for further reading"I had to fight all my life to survive. They were all against me, but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch." - Ty Cobb"Cobb is a prick. But he sure can hit. God Almighty, that man can hit." - Babe RuthAs one of America's oldest and most beloved sports, baseball has long been touted as the national pastime, but of all the millions of people who have played it over the last few centuries, few have influenced Major League Baseball like Ty Cobb, whose career spanned over 20 seasons. The Georgia Peach overcame early hardships to set nearly 100 MLB records in his time as a player and player-manager for the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Athletics. With an MVP and Triple Crown under his belt by the age of 25, Cobb went on to produce statistics that still lead MLB in several categories, including 4,065 combined runs scored and RBIs, a career batting average over .365, and at least 11 batting titles. In cases where he's no longer the record holder, it would take decades for players like Pete Rose to play in more games and collect more at bats and hits, for Rickey Henderson to score as many runs, and for Lou Brock to steal more bases. Even Americans who are relatively unfamiliar with baseball's storied history have likely heard of Ty Cobb and can recognize him as one of the sport's all time greats, but today his legacy is better known for controversy. In his day, Cobb was cast as a villain by fans of teams he played against, but he was portrayed in flattering manners shortly after his death. Things changed when other contemporary accounts came out and cast him as a vile racist, among other personal failings, much of which can be credited to the writing of sportswriter Al Stump and the modern biopic Cobb, released in 1994. It has only been recently that modern historians have pushed back a bit on those portrayals of Cobb and attempted to depict him in a more balanced light, and even then some of them have struggled. For example, in The Journal of American Culture, writer Hunter M. Hampton noted that biographer Charles Leerhsen's Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty, released in 2015, "succeeds in debunking the myth of Cobb that Stump created, but...spawned a new myth by conflating Stump's shortcomings to depict Cobb as an egalitarian"Ty Cobb: The Life and Legacy of the Player Who Set the Most Major League Baseball Records profiles the controversial legend, both on the field and off it. Along with pictures of important people, places, and events, you will learn about Ty Cobb like never before.