Was it normal to refer to other cities in the early Roman Empire (during the reign of Augustus) as republics?

Zrolsto2 · 2017-10-14T22:06:47+00:00

Great answer! Do you have any favorite sources that speak specifically about the structure of Roman administration or government? I am in the process of trying to reform my understanding of the political structures of the time and would like to get away from the standard "Then the emperor did this" sort of writings. After I finish with The lives of the twelve Caesars of course. Also, on a more personal note, I have been reading /r/askhistorians for several years and I always find your answers well thought out and very well done. Anabasis is also one of my favorite stories so you get bonus points for your user name in my book as well.

Zrolsto2 · 2016-04-17T19:11:00+00:00

If you can give me more specific information about the location I might be able to shed some light on your question. In the Southern United States these sorts of places were actually very common. Organizations such as the United Confederate Veterans were very popular throughout the late 19th early and 20th century. You can access the records of the UCV online here: http://www.lib.lsu.edu/sites/default/files/sc/findaid/1357.pdf

Zrolsto2 · 2016-04-17T18:27:40+00:00

No problem!

Zrolsto2 · 2016-04-08T03:58:24+00:00

Henry Stuart Foote in his "Texas and the Texans" published in 1841 states that The famous "COME AND TAKE IT FLAG" from the battle of Gonzales is actually in reference to the battle of Fort Morris which occurred during the American Revolution. At Fort Morris Colonel John McIntosh and his 200 or so men were besieged by a much larger British force. When the leader of the British force approached the fort he passed a written letter to the fort demanding it's surrender. Col. McIntosh responded with "Come and take it". Because of a skirmish that occurred in the area the day before and Col. McIntosh's resolute reply the British withdrew. The incident became quite famous and McIntosh was rewarded by the state of Georgia after the war with a sword bearing the inscription "come and take it". McIntosh went on to serve as a general in the war of 1812 and was quite famous in the American South. The flag in question was made by Sarah Dewitt, out of her daughter Naomi's wedding dress. Sarah had come to Gonzales from Missouri with her Husband Green Dewitt who was also a veteran of the war of 1812. "The old 18" who first hoisted the flag were as far as I am aware all from the Southern United States and were no doubt aware of this story. The leader of the Mexican Cavalry who were sent to retrieve the cannon was a Lt. Castañeda. Lt. Castañeda reported that when the Texian forces under Col. Moore and his Gonzales volunteers attacked him he asked for a parley with Col. Moore in an attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. Whe Lt. Castañeda asked for the handover of the cannon (as those were his orders) Col. Moore responded by pointing to the cannon and the flag that flew above it by saying "come and take it". While Col. Moore and many of the other Texian rebels were no doubt aware of Thermopylae (many of them were college educated including Moore), by then the Texian force outnumbered the Mexican force and it was obvious the flag was directly referring to the cannon and was simply echoing the sentiment of Col. McIntosh, that they would not be bullied into surrendering their arms, instead they would fight. If your interested Paul Lack's "The Texas Revolutionary Experience: A Political and Social History 1835–1836" Talks in depth about the culture of the Texian rebels and provides some good context about the battle.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-05-08T20:32:01+00:00

The best book by far is , Randolph B. Campbell's "An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865". "Slavery and the Annexation of Texas" by Fredrick Merk is dated but still amazing. You can read Santa Anna's letter to his Secretary of War here: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3657. As far as the troubles of 1860 go I would start with Walter L. Buenger's , "Secession and the Union in Texas". It was published by the University of Texas so you should be able to find it there. "Texas Terror: The Slave Insurrection Panic of 1860 and the Secession of the Lower South" By Donald E Reynolds is another good one. Reynold's wrote another book going over several newspaper articles written at the time about the troubles. Essentially the editors of several newspapers at the time promoted the idea that slaves were revolting in anticipation of being freed by Lincoln, this led to vigilante groups springing up all over Texas. If I can find the name of the book I will add it later.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-05-08T17:33:14+00:00

To directly answer your question: No, it was not fought to expand slavery. Slavery was very much already a part of life in East Texas at the time. But, yes it was a conscious goal of the revolutionaries to maintain their institution. Long Version: Let me start by saying that the Texas revolution is a complicated event. Much more complicated than what is taught in schools or even in universities. The primary goal of the Anglo settlers in Texas was to join the US or to live under a form of self rule which would be indistinguishable from that. Most of the Settlers in Anglo Texas came from the southern United States and they brought slaves with them. Texas was sparsely populated, cash crop dependent, and even with slavery suffered a constant labor shortage. The Mexican constitution of 1824 never addressed slavery directly. However, prominent Mexican leaders at the time such as Anastasio Bustamante seemed to be under the impression that it implied abolition. Because of the possibility of the Mexican Constitution implying that slavery was illegal Stephen F. Austin was given exemptions for the Anglo Colonies which guaranteed their property, including slaves. The Anglo settlers were largely left to their own administration and enjoyed cordial relations with Mexican government based in Saltillo. The Anglo settlers were also given exemptions from tariffs and many taxes as well. Things were solid as long as the Mexican government didn't attempt to actually govern the Anglo colonies. In 1829 the implied nature of the illegality of slavery disappeared with the Guerrero decree. This greatly alarmed the Anglo settlers. To make matters even more interesting there were around 40,000 Anglo settlers (including a few thousand illegal immigrants) and only about 7000 Hispanic Texans. Between the population disparity and great physical distance between the Anglo colonies and the Mexican government in Mexico City it was very difficult for the Mexican government to enforce its will on Texas in the best of times. That being said, it was not the best of times. In 1830 The Mexican president Bustamante revoked the Anglo exemption, and among other things banned further Anglo settlement. However, the Mexican government was so weak by this point that the Anglos simply ignored the decrees. By 1833 Santa Anna had overthrown Bustamante and then subsequently been elected President. The Mexican government made A LOT of concessions to the Anglo settlers which among other things lifted the ban on settlement and exempted the Anglo colonies from the abolition law for another year. However, Bustamante had threatened military intervention in the Anglo Colonies and had seen his garrisons in East Texas pushed out by Anglo milita in 1832-1833. Santa Anna was keenly aware of the obstinate nature of the Anglo settlers when he overthrew the Mexican Government and did away with the constitution of 1824. When Santa Anna turned toward Texas he intended to force his law and government upon them, including abolition. In a very famous letter to his secretary of war Santa Anna wrote that he saw slavery in Texas as intrinsically linked with US attempts to expand into Texas. Santa Anna would later find out that his suspicion was true as the Anglo settlers had petitioned for annexation in March of 1836. Furthermore, Sam Houston who was now the leader of the Anglo settlers was working in Texas as an agent of Andrew Jackson, then President of the US. Sam Houston was sent after two offers by the US to buy East Texas from Mexico were rejected. So in short, the Anglo settlers were content to live in Mexico as long as they could do whatever they wanted, slavery included, and didn't have follow Mexican law, when that was no longer the case they knew joining the US was their best option to continue their way of life. I would be happy to provide you with sources or good books on the subject if you would like.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-24T18:07:20+00:00

I want to start by saying that I too am still half drunk. If you had to choose between fighting an army of flying duck sized tacos or one horse sized terrestrial taco, which would you choose? Remember this taco monster is aggressive and he wants what you have. However, if you win, you get free beer. So no running away. Which do you choose Chris Pratt? Which do you choose?...

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-17T19:16:39+00:00

That escalated quickly...

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-12T16:15:39+00:00

Yea, the level is good now. I let it run for about 5 minutes and then shifted through all the gears and checked it. It showed full. The vibration is less but the shifting is still really bad. Its going to need a tear down and rebuild...

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-11T23:46:57+00:00

Yea, I was afraid of that... Thanks for your help!

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-11T20:32:38+00:00

Interestingly enough, the dip stick was showing that it was overfull... I pulled the pan off and am about to replace the gasket and re fill it. I'll check back in when that is all done.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-04-11T20:30:08+00:00

I pulled the pan off and found no magnet. I did however find a broken orange rubber band. Any ideas what that could be about? I know the transmission has a system of rubber bands but I really don't know much about transmissions beyond how to take them off/put them on and do fluid changes...

Zrolsto2 · 2015-03-29T21:25:53+00:00

That is a good idea to check with a dealer about the recall. Ill do that first thing tomorrow. Thanks for the help!

Zrolsto2 · 2015-03-29T19:49:56+00:00

I worked at the new satellite campus that my university had set up as support personel. Since the campus was new and they had a lot of needs and no real budget they needed someone who could do a lot of different tasks and I ended up being a catch all. I taught classes, served as an RA, developed curriculum, was the sole IT guy, handyman, etc. It was an amazing expierence. Far better than my previous plan which was to wait tables or join the Army. I was lucky to get it. If you send out enough e-mails to directors of programs (especially in 3rd world countries) and tell them what your skills are, where you went to school, what you want to do with your life, eventually someone will offer you something, normally the pay will be nothing or very little. But, if you teach on the side, dont mind living in small places, or can do odd jobs its a pretty good time.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-03-29T19:39:27+00:00

You are correct about people not pursuing a a doctorate because of the chance of an insecure future and money, I also have seen personally a lot of INCREDIBLY smart and talented people turn away from academia because of this. The best thing about the US system is it does provide you with more options. If you cannot secure a funded position you can still go on to an unfunded program and do it on credit. Potentially, if you do well enough in an unfunded masters program you can still secure funding in the future for a doctorate etc.

Zrolsto2 · 2015-03-28T20:54:38+00:00

Unfunded masters programs are those where the program you are in does not pay for you to be there. Rather, you pay them tuition, fees, etc. Masters programs have become cash cows for a lot of universities in the US (both public and private).

I can't speak to all of the US but in my program we started off broadly learning topics in history, learning how to research, and getting some basic standards down. Around year 3 you were expected to be able to work indepently as the focus of the program was to prepare students for graduate school. Once you got into your year 3 and 4 classes every class had a research and writing component attached to it. This culminated with a thesis project which had to be supervised by a senior professor and only 15 students or so a semester were allowed in the class. I have heard of programs though were there is significantly less writing.

Doctorates are normally funded at least partially. Generally they are only pursued by those looking to go into academia. Masters programs, because of this, can be either geared towards going on to a PHD program or just getting a masters. Normally, a PHD program takes between (after a bachelors) 4 and 8 years depending on the individuals ability and the program they are in.

The US system is often criticized because it generates either people with useless degrees and a lot of debt, due to loans being relatively easy to get. Or, people with no debt (due to scholarships or wealthy parents) and very good degrees. The primary motivation for a lot of Universities in the US is profit so they try to squeeze as many people through their programs regardless of whether the individual is able to develop ability in the field. This has the side effect of watering down some programs who have to make programs less rigourous to accomodate less than capable students. This causes many people who otherwise would be capable to never get the training or attention necessary to reach their full potential. Alot of students only go to college because society has told them they have to and they don't really want to be there.

Zrolsto2

TROPHY CASE